|
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 26 2012 10:40 Rassy wrote:
"Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious."
If you fire into a big crowd in an enclosed area it does not realy matter how accurate your weapon is,
A lower rate of fire would definatly make such situations alot less dangerous/deadly
And how many situations has there been with people with illegally modified AR's firing into mass crowds? Especially in the US, since this is where all the recent controversy has been.
People want to blame the thing, instead of the person, for these types of crimes. Even for crimes which haven't been committed but could hypothetically in the future maybe possibly take place. What else do we treat like this?
|
On July 26 2012 10:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:41 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully.... You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them?
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryThe United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms. + Show Spoiler +Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant) Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year. EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple. Some weird statistics? LOL, "my statistics disagree with yours; yours must be weird." X-D This article is, yes, biased, but written by someone whom I trust to do his research. That's my source. And Wiki... aaaaahhhhh, Wiki.... m-D No, I don't trust Wikipedia for issues like this (for much of anything, really), even if there are "citations."
you dispute statistical data provided by various countries' governments (mere "citations") and as your own "statistics" - when your original claims were refuted as bad guesswork - you provide an opinion piece by a political columnist ("someone whom i trust to do his research" even if he provides no information save for unsupported claims and anecdotes). best part is you bow out calling what you're doing "mental workout". you should do that a bit more often, pal, but hopefully no-one bites your bait in the next thread you butcher 
|
On July 26 2012 09:34 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 08:23 Zahir wrote:
While anyone can go bad at any time, his destructive potential is always limited by the laws we put in place to prevent access to the most dangerous materials. We aren't seeking to make everyones lives a little less free and a little more safe, we are trying to make it so that the worst, most psychotic and dangerous killers are limited in the destruction they can cause.
That is consistent with the Us's position on preserving, within reason, individual liberties. Some of the most dangerous and psychotic killers of our time didn't even use guns...
True those who are really crafty can still cause havoc but the point is, is that only those who are actually crafty can do it. Making some things very hard to obtain limits the damage crazies can do, esp the stupid ones. At least according to fbi profiles those of mass murderers and serial killers often had a slightly below avg qi, it was usually the ones that used bombs that had an above avg qi. The point is raising the difficulty, if you gave everyone bombs they could all do similar damage but if you only let them make bombs themselves only a few would actually be good enough to do it. And if that is the case is it not a worth while venture. Else why do we build walls when people can just build latters? The point is to weed out the random whims of people, sure there will always be smart and determined individuals. Why not just have to deal with them rather then deal with every bloke who thinks himself big.
|
Question:
How guns can be purchased without a licence or permit in many states, but there are many states restrict or outright prohibit concealed folding knives or large blades like Bowie knives?
I'm not being facetious or coy. I don't really see the logic.
|
On July 26 2012 10:40 Rassy wrote:
"Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious."
If you fire into a big crowd in an enclosed area it does not realy matter how accurate your weapon is,
A lower rate of fire would definatly make such situations alot less dangerous/deadly.
When you say that its a useless option annyway then there should also be no problem banning it?
They'd be more deadly. Fewer of his shots would have caused minor wounds or missed entirely. More of them would have been kill shots. It's also likely his gun would not have jammed.
On July 26 2012 12:08 Defacer wrote:
Question:
How guns can be purchased without a licence or permit in many states, but there are many states restrict or outright prohibit concealed folding knives or large blades like Bowie knives?
I'm not being facetious or coy. I don't really see the logic.
The states don't all have the same laws. I'm sure there must be some issues up in Canada where some of your provinces take one side, while others take the opposite.
Also, there isn't much logic to quite a bit of it. Until quite recently, you only had to do a little paperwork to get a pistol license in New York, but it was next to impossible to get a crossbow for hunting. Just in case you or anyone else is interested, you can hunt with crossbows now, as the legislation was repealed for being really dumb.
The only thing that I can think of that was universal in the states is the Assault Weapons Ban, but that expired in 2004.
|
On July 26 2012 11:21 ikh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 26 2012 06:41 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully.... You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them?
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryThe United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms. + Show Spoiler +Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant) Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year. EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple. Some weird statistics? LOL, "my statistics disagree with yours; yours must be weird." X-D This article is, yes, biased, but written by someone whom I trust to do his research. That's my source. And Wiki... aaaaahhhhh, Wiki.... m-D No, I don't trust Wikipedia for issues like this (for much of anything, really), even if there are "citations." you dispute statistical data provided by various countries' governments (mere "citations") and as your own "statistics" - when your original claims were refuted as bad guesswork - you provide an opinion piece by a political columnist ("someone whom i trust to do his research" even if he provides no information save for unsupported claims and anecdotes). best part is you bow out calling what you're doing "mental workout". you should do that a bit more often, pal, but hopefully no-one bites your bait in the next thread you butcher
(Lol, I'm far too curious for my own good.... m-D )
He posted "statistical data" that was put up on a blatantly pro-gun-control website. In retrospect, I should've just called him out on that and waited for a response, as that's hardly an unbiased source for information, lol.
|
On July 26 2012 10:21 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:12 m4inbrain wrote:On July 24 2012 06:35 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 05:23 m4inbrain wrote:On July 24 2012 04:51 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 04:42 Rassy wrote:
Defacer Canada. July 24 2012 04:32. Posts 3248
He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
Now that would be something.
Keeping in the guns but banning the gear that protects against them.
Its the world upside down. None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about. Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. Youre a huge wise-ass, you know that right? Also, youre wrong. Which actually is easy to read up on, just take a look at the californian 89 assault weapon ban, also the 2000 assault weapon ban. Guess which rifle was classified as assault rifle? They even banned the AR-15 specifically by name in both laws. So does wikipedia, and alot of gun-sites i just looked up. But im curious, how do you call a full auto rifle which can be equipped with drum-mags? I don't care if the California legislator calls them evil fairy wands, it does not make them correct. The AR-15 is a semi auto sporting rifle which looks mimic the m16/m4. The ones used in the military have additional internal parts for full auto, a stronger bolt and bolt carrier, and sometimes a thicker barrel. The only people who use the word "assault rifle" are those who really don't know what they are talking about. If you really wanted a full auto "assault rifle" you would need first find one someone wants to sell. That is rare because you can not buy one manufactured after 1986. Because of this prices on m16s are about 15k plus. Then you have to fill out a class 3 form to the ATF (which included getting permission for local police chief to have the weapon), pay 200 bucks, then wait 5-6 months. What the idiot in colorado used was a cheap smith and wesson ar. How do I know it was cheap? Because it jammed with little use. So the guy didn't know what the hell he was doing or he bought an inferior rifle. Regardless I am not complaining. Also, who cares about drum magazines? Find me any fire arms instructor/trainer/etc that advocates using that in a non-recreational manner. 100 loaded drum is heavy as hell, and would quickly cause fatigue and accuracy would quickly diminish. Sporting rifle, yeah, right.. Youre kinda delusional, i get the feeling. As long as the normal AR-15 which everyone can buy legally can be legally modified to full-automatic-fire, it doesnt matter in any frikkin way if the barrel is slightly thinner. I dont even dare to show you how easy you can turn your AR-15 legally to full auto (for about 400 dollar), because it seems you either dont know that, or you try to make a point hoping that no-one knows. Either way, we both know youre bullshitting. Further, the "jam" kinda didnt stop him from killing nearly 100 people, did it? And your argument against drum-mags (which are btw called "LMG-Mags" for a reason, and guess what, its because it turns an assault rifle basically into a light machine gun - again, easy to read up on that fact, check the G36 and the germans army LMG, which is a G36 with drum mag and bipod with no mechanical modifications). We are not talking about sniper or self defense, we are talking about a freakin idiot who basically had LEGALLY a light machine gun to his disposal in a theater. The fact that it wasnt (again, legally) modified to shoot full auto was luck on "your" part, nothing more. And dont try to get me on semantics, an AR-15 that can fire 900rpm is full auto, theres no discussion about that. Oh please tell me about this 400 dollar magic wand that can turn an AR into a legal full auto weapon. I am all ears because this is wrong on so many levels. I have had ARs and AKs and have done extensive smithing work on both. I think I know a little more about the weapon systems than you.
I can see how much you know about weapon systems. Im not even from the US and know that you can buy an attachment to beef up an AR-15. And its actually not 400 dollars, but 315. The fact that you had "smithing work" done on them both, instead of just modify them with a simple attachment (dunno if it works on AKs, guess not because theyre manufactured in texas). Again, legally. Google it yourself, weapon expert.
Drum mags are not called LMG mags. They are simple called drum mags. To my knowledge all LMG's in the army use an ammo box. There are no standard issue drum mags. Anyways, a light machine gun is...well.. a machine gun. That means fully automatic fire.
They're actually called C-Mags, expert.
http://images.wikia.com/battlefield/images/8/8a/G36_CMag.jpg
Thats an LMG over here (750 RPM). 900 rpm is basically fully automatic fire. Again, start googling.
Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious. Secondly, you may not know this because you seem to have never shot what you are so adamantly against, but an AR gets EXTREMELY hot. As in just fire a standard 30 round magazine and you will be pissing your pants if you accidentally touch the metal. At 900 rounds per minute you will either melt the plastic heat shields, or make your aluminum rail so hot you will get 2nd to 3rd degree burns.
So please, go on and tell me how you are such the small arms expert.
Yeah, maybe the US just use it for covering and surpressing, we also use it for "Sturmabwehrschießen", which is basically short rapid bursts on full auto. And mate, we are not talking about tactical benefits, i fired two MG3s out of the hip in my time in the army, and still (more or less) could hit a "Pappkamerad" (ahm, something like a target, but man-shaped) at 50m.
If youre a lunatic that wants to fuckin just kill as much people as possible, you dont care about ppl on 2000m range. You just look for a big blob of ppl and just aim somewhat in that direction, fire, done.
Also its kinda funny, first you say, the AR cant fire full auto, yet you say, at 900 rpm you with an AR you would not hit anything (and youre, funny enough, again wrong there - first google, then youtube). And btw, i actually shot more than one fully automatic weapon, beginning with MG3s, G36s, G36ks, G3s, G22 (not full auto, but just to be complete), and a 20mm full auto BMK incl T-MG. Legally and (mostly) under supervision in the Bundeswehr.
About your plastic melting, didnt look like it in the videos i watched.
Edit: to be clear, for about 100 pages im waiting for an explanation, why that needs to be legal.
|
On July 26 2012 12:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 11:21 ikh wrote:On July 26 2012 10:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 26 2012 06:41 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully.... You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them?
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryThe United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms. + Show Spoiler +Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant) Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year. EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple. Some weird statistics? LOL, "my statistics disagree with yours; yours must be weird." X-D This article is, yes, biased, but written by someone whom I trust to do his research. That's my source. And Wiki... aaaaahhhhh, Wiki.... m-D No, I don't trust Wikipedia for issues like this (for much of anything, really), even if there are "citations." you dispute statistical data provided by various countries' governments (mere "citations") and as your own "statistics" - when your original claims were refuted as bad guesswork - you provide an opinion piece by a political columnist ("someone whom i trust to do his research" even if he provides no information save for unsupported claims and anecdotes). best part is you bow out calling what you're doing "mental workout". you should do that a bit more often, pal, but hopefully no-one bites your bait in the next thread you butcher (Lol, I'm far too curious for my own good.... m-D ) He posted "statistical data" that was put up on a blatantly pro-gun-control website. In retrospect, I should've just called him out on that and waited for a response, as that's hardly an unbiased source for information, lol.
he posted three links all with valid sources. feel free to criticise any of them if you can find any basis for their illegitimacy, but the problem is the statistics in the graph provided (as well as the wikipedia links) are 100% in line with the information you'll find through google if you look for similar data. you didn't look for any, you're not interested in looking for any and you probably couldn't find any even if you tried to support your side of the argument. that's the level you're on and you don't even know it. instead you look for a political columnist and believe his words of nice and fuzzy truthiness.
if you took a look at the graph and took the time to analyze it a bit you could've at least criticised the fact its information was severely outdated for what it's worth. instead, you put out gems like this:
Plus, I can poke a couple holes in that pretty picture you got there. The first is that the US has a larger population than most of those countries (still working this argument out). Second, is that the US has areas of vastly different social structure. The murder rates in Washington D.C. are the highest in the nation, but they also have very strict laws regarding gun ownership. Compare that to a rural area, like some rural city in the West, and you'll see the disparity pretty quickly. So it's not necessarily representative of the entire country. [a nationwide per 100k people statistics graph]
c'mon, nobody could do worse than that even if they tried :D
|
On July 26 2012 08:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo. If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking. My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me. If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill?
I gave up trying to get someone to explain the difference a hundred pages ago. Perhaps I'll have more success with you. Please outline why guns (particularly assault rifles) are fundamentally different from Sarin gas/bombs/landmines. If it's so obvious then you should have no difficulty doing so. I bet you can't make a distinction between these objects that isn't completely arbitrary.
On July 26 2012 10:21 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:12 m4inbrain wrote:On July 24 2012 06:35 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 05:23 m4inbrain wrote:On July 24 2012 04:51 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 24 2012 04:42 Rassy wrote:
Defacer Canada. July 24 2012 04:32. Posts 3248
He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
Now that would be something.
Keeping in the guns but banning the gear that protects against them.
Its the world upside down. None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about. Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. Youre a huge wise-ass, you know that right? Also, youre wrong. Which actually is easy to read up on, just take a look at the californian 89 assault weapon ban, also the 2000 assault weapon ban. Guess which rifle was classified as assault rifle? They even banned the AR-15 specifically by name in both laws. So does wikipedia, and alot of gun-sites i just looked up. But im curious, how do you call a full auto rifle which can be equipped with drum-mags? I don't care if the California legislator calls them evil fairy wands, it does not make them correct. The AR-15 is a semi auto sporting rifle which looks mimic the m16/m4. The ones used in the military have additional internal parts for full auto, a stronger bolt and bolt carrier, and sometimes a thicker barrel. The only people who use the word "assault rifle" are those who really don't know what they are talking about. If you really wanted a full auto "assault rifle" you would need first find one someone wants to sell. That is rare because you can not buy one manufactured after 1986. Because of this prices on m16s are about 15k plus. Then you have to fill out a class 3 form to the ATF (which included getting permission for local police chief to have the weapon), pay 200 bucks, then wait 5-6 months. What the idiot in colorado used was a cheap smith and wesson ar. How do I know it was cheap? Because it jammed with little use. So the guy didn't know what the hell he was doing or he bought an inferior rifle. Regardless I am not complaining. Also, who cares about drum magazines? Find me any fire arms instructor/trainer/etc that advocates using that in a non-recreational manner. 100 loaded drum is heavy as hell, and would quickly cause fatigue and accuracy would quickly diminish. Sporting rifle, yeah, right.. Youre kinda delusional, i get the feeling. As long as the normal AR-15 which everyone can buy legally can be legally modified to full-automatic-fire, it doesnt matter in any frikkin way if the barrel is slightly thinner. I dont even dare to show you how easy you can turn your AR-15 legally to full auto (for about 400 dollar), because it seems you either dont know that, or you try to make a point hoping that no-one knows. Either way, we both know youre bullshitting. Further, the "jam" kinda didnt stop him from killing nearly 100 people, did it? And your argument against drum-mags (which are btw called "LMG-Mags" for a reason, and guess what, its because it turns an assault rifle basically into a light machine gun - again, easy to read up on that fact, check the G36 and the germans army LMG, which is a G36 with drum mag and bipod with no mechanical modifications). We are not talking about sniper or self defense, we are talking about a freakin idiot who basically had LEGALLY a light machine gun to his disposal in a theater. The fact that it wasnt (again, legally) modified to shoot full auto was luck on "your" part, nothing more. And dont try to get me on semantics, an AR-15 that can fire 900rpm is full auto, theres no discussion about that. Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything.
It staggers me that anyone would say this. What you probably mean to say is that 900 rpm is somewhat more indiscriminate. 900 rpm in a crowded theatre is the end of days.
|
On July 26 2012 12:53 ikh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 12:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 26 2012 11:21 ikh wrote:On July 26 2012 10:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 26 2012 06:41 wherebugsgo wrote:On July 25 2012 11:25 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 11:14 wherebugsgo wrote:
The problem has to do primarily, IMO, with the actual supply of firearms.
The problem of criminals freely wielding firearms can't be solved relatively quickly in the United States by making firearms illegal because the firearm industry is huge. Shutting down such a huge industry all at once is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thus any reform would take years. Americans are pretty notorious for being impatient (just look at the foundation of the economic system) and so in the current political atmosphere (and for the foreseeable future) such initiatives will be incredibly hard to implement.
So, I think baby steps are required. Suppose we ban assault weapons first and create programs to reduce their sale and proliferation in the United States. Impose sanctions on private sellers of these weapons. Ensure that they are hard (if not impossible) to obtain online easily. Cause the market price of these guns to go up.
What happens? Supply of these guns goes down and they're less available for the average criminal.
Ultimately if you can achieve what Britain or the rest of Europe has achieved when it comes to gun control, firearm violence will be unheard of because no one will have firearms.
Also, I think the argument that guns in the hands of civilians deters firearm violence is pretty flawed at its core. The United States has the highest rate of firearm related homicide in the world almost simply due to how easy it is to obtain a gun. In places like Switzerland where guns are as common as they are here, the system is designed to educate the possessor about the usage of the weapon. Firearm violence isn't reduced there because of the guns themselves but rather that the culture is simply different. Also, firearm violence in Switzerland is higher than in other European states, from what I recall.
Finally if you think about it, the notion that firearms in the hands of civilians deters criminal activity is essentially a notion that vigilante justice is okay. I don't think that's true, because civilians aren't trained to handle criminals like the police are.
As it was described by someone else in the CO shooting thread, in certain situations civilians are more likely to cause further harm (by shooting other civilians on the scene) than helping.
Indeed, if you're in a dark theater and you hear one gunman shooting, how do you know who it is? How do you know where the shots are coming from? If you then start hearing return fire, is it multiple shooters? How do you distinguish the "good guy" from the "bad guy"? What happens if the guy who returned fire mistakes some innocent bystander for the gunman and kills them? A lot of these "what-ifs" create huge problems that you can't just solve by saying "well if civilians had guns this wouldn't happen." In fact, often times the criminals were law-abiding gun owners just before the crime. They're not considered criminals until they commit the act, no?
Then is the problem really about the availability and prevelance of firearms? Or is it the motive of the would-be shooter? If criminals knew that there might be someone with a concealed-carry weapon at the location that they planned to strike, they might be deterred altogether from committing the act in the first place. Hopefully.... You can't really proliferate guns anymore than they are already in the United States. The US has one of the highest gun ownership rates, if not the highest, in the world. If criminals aren't scared about civilians carrying guns already how will more guns deter them?
Also, I've heard precisely the opposite concerning the Swiss/British and gun violence. Be skeptical of the statistics, lol. ALL of them, no matter the side they support....
some weird statistics you must be reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryThe United States is up there with some third world countries in terms of death rates due to firearms. + Show Spoiler +Here's a comparison of death rates with ownership. You can see that, despite all its laws regarding gun ownership and education, gun homicide in Switzerland is pretty high too (compared to other European countries). I don't think it's merely a coincidence that Switzerland is one of the only countries in Europe with such free access to guns (though it is true that correlation does not imply causation, the evidence is pretty significant) Compare England and the United States, for example. The United States has 14 times more guns per capita (88 guns for every 100 people; almost a gun per person) and 60 times the gun-related homicides per year. EDIT: I should clarify, the gun ownership in the United States is a bit misleading since households that carry a gun are more likely to carry multiple guns. Thus only about 30% of households carry guns but some carry multiple. Some weird statistics? LOL, "my statistics disagree with yours; yours must be weird." X-D This article is, yes, biased, but written by someone whom I trust to do his research. That's my source. And Wiki... aaaaahhhhh, Wiki.... m-D No, I don't trust Wikipedia for issues like this (for much of anything, really), even if there are "citations." you dispute statistical data provided by various countries' governments (mere "citations") and as your own "statistics" - when your original claims were refuted as bad guesswork - you provide an opinion piece by a political columnist ("someone whom i trust to do his research" even if he provides no information save for unsupported claims and anecdotes). best part is you bow out calling what you're doing "mental workout". you should do that a bit more often, pal, but hopefully no-one bites your bait in the next thread you butcher (Lol, I'm far too curious for my own good.... m-D ) He posted "statistical data" that was put up on a blatantly pro-gun-control website. In retrospect, I should've just called him out on that and waited for a response, as that's hardly an unbiased source for information, lol. he posted three links all with valid sources. feel free to criticise any of them if you can find any basis for their illegitimacy, but the problem is the statistics in the graph provided (as well as the wikipedia links) are 100% in line with the information you'll find through google if you look for similar data. you didn't look for any, you're not interested in looking for any and you probably couldn't find any even if you tried to support your side of the argument. that's the level you're on and you don't even know it. instead you look for a political columnist and believe his words of nice and fuzzy truthiness. if you took a look at the graph and took the time to analyze it a bit you could've at least criticised the fact its information was severely outdated for what it's worth. instead, you put out gems like this: Show nested quote +Plus, I can poke a couple holes in that pretty picture you got there. The first is that the US has a larger population than most of those countries (still working this argument out). Second, is that the US has areas of vastly different social structure. The murder rates in Washington D.C. are the highest in the nation, but they also have very strict laws regarding gun ownership. Compare that to a rural area, like some rural city in the West, and you'll see the disparity pretty quickly. So it's not necessarily representative of the entire country. [a nationwide per 100k people statistics graph] c'mon, nobody could do worse than that even if they tried :D
Lol? I read Sowell's articles all the time; the column I read that day just so happened to be applicable to the conversation.
When I looked at the graph, it clearly showed the US and Switzerland as the highest gun-owning, and injuring per 100,000 people, of the group, and very strict Japan at next to nil. I smelled a rotten, disingenuous bias. And the site he pulled it from reeks with it. I'd say that's a veritable reason to criticize.
"Everyone else" concurs with what the graph suggested? Oh. So glad to know truth is a democracy....
I did look for some "statistics," a half-hearted Google search that I invested less than 10 minutes into, and I admitted I couldn't find anything. Basically, I admitted defeat on the matter of the "stats." ...There. Said it. Does that make you/him happier? How hard does that stroke your ego, hm?
That's why I tried leaving this debate. I was worried someone like you would come along and try gloating about this in my face. Ah well.... Your response will likely be, "aw you're so mad bro" or something similar. (¬_¬) Whatever, lol. Have fun with this thread; I'm done.
"No, I insist, take it. Take your win. I'll be over here, gaining a life...."
|
On July 26 2012 13:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:
post above
see, this is why you should stay out of debate threads. you are not having a debate, you're arguing.
|
On July 26 2012 13:09 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2012 08:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo. If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking. My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me. If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill? I gave up trying to get someone to explain the difference a hundred pages ago. Perhaps I'll have more success with you. Please outline why guns (particularly assault rifles) are fundamentally different from Sarin gas/bombs/landmines. If it's so obvious then you should have no difficulty doing so. I bet you can't make a distinction between these objects that isn't completely arbitrary.
You honestly need me to explain why a chemical weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is not the same as someone owning a gun? Sure. After, I expect you to actually address the point I made in my response that you quoted. it seems people like to randomly quote me for a sentence in my responses without ever responding to the actual point brought up within it.
As to your question, guns have practical applications in hunting. They can be used in shooting competitions. You can go to the range and spend some time shooting one off, testing your accuracy, and generally having fun.
What are the pratical applications for a civilian for Sarin gas? How about land mines? None? Guess that was easy huh. I excluded bombs because explosives do have practical applications and can be obtained by professionals for specific purposes. If you just want to blow shit up on your land, find out what permits you need to accomplish that and hire a professional to set things up. They will probably let you press the button. Fun times.
As for you adding the assault rifles portion to your question, I never once have commented on them, so don't feel the need to defend them.
|
On July 26 2012 10:44 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 10:40 Rassy wrote:
"Sure, an AR can fire at a high rate of fire. Guess what though, at 900rpm you can not hit anything. For a few reasons. First even military units only use fully auto for covering and suppressing fire. Full auto has almost no tactical benefit. Too inaccurate and waste too much ammo, which both are precious."
If you fire into a big crowd in an enclosed area it does not realy matter how accurate your weapon is,
A lower rate of fire would definatly make such situations alot less dangerous/deadly People want to blame the thing, instead of the person, for these types of crimes. Even for crimes which haven't been committed but could hypothetically in the future maybe possibly take place. What else do we treat like this?
pedophiles
|
On July 26 2012 15:26 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:09 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2012 08:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo. If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking. My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me. If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill? I gave up trying to get someone to explain the difference a hundred pages ago. Perhaps I'll have more success with you. Please outline why guns (particularly assault rifles) are fundamentally different from Sarin gas/bombs/landmines. If it's so obvious then you should have no difficulty doing so. I bet you can't make a distinction between these objects that isn't completely arbitrary. You honestly need me to explain why a chemical weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is not the same as someone owning a gun? Sure. After, I expect you to actually address the point I made in my response that you quoted. it seems people like to randomly quote me for a sentence in my responses without ever responding to the actual point brought up within it.
My point is that a gun is a weapon capable of mass destruction. All the proof you need occurred last week (yet again).
As to your question, guns have practical applications in hunting. They can be used in shooting competitions. You can go to the range and spend some time shooting one off, testing your accuracy, and generally having fun.
Fine, then gun regulation presents no problem. We'll allow 1 round hunting rifles, and we'll ban private ownership of any other gun, since they can be acquired at a range for the purposes of recreational shooting. Thus, people like you will be satisfied, as guns will still be used for the "practical" applications you've described, and people like me will be satisfied, because lunatics will no longer be able to obtain handguns and assault rifles for lord knows what end.
What are the pratical applications for a civilian for Sarin gas? How about land mines? None? Guess that was easy huh. I excluded bombs because explosives do have practical applications and can be obtained by professionals for specific purposes. If you just want to blow shit up on your land, find out what permits you need to accomplish that and hire a professional to set things up. They will probably let you press the button. Fun times.
That's your defense eh? Practicality? And I suppose it doesn't matter that we're using your own definition of practicality, which unless you can prove otherwise appears to be arbitrary. How is civilian ownership of a semi-automatic assault rifle practical? That's somehow more practical than landmines? I don't see how. The fact is we aren't discussing hunting/recreational shooting. Logically this is true, since if we were nobody with a positive IQ would have a problem with gun regulation. What we're really discussing is the right for people to own and bear guns for "self defense," and why that right trumps all other factors involved. I can defend myself with chemical gas. I can defend my house with landmines or explosives. That is my definition of practicality, no less arbitrary than your own. Do you now understand why your definition is arbitrary?
For example, you are using fear-based logic to support gun-ownership. It goes like this: "What if X enters my house to do Y? I'll need a gun to defend myself." I can just as easily say "What if 5 people enter my house with guns to do Y," then conclude I'll need landmines to defend myself. The point is that both examples are irrational fear-based logic. Neither scenario is likely, but if you're committing yourself to being prepared for the unlikely extreme then why allow a gun for 1 person but not chemical gas for several people when both can be abused to kill so many people. Furthermore, when guns are abused, no fewer people die than with landmines, or even chemical gas. Yes, this is true, however many people you can kill with chemical gas, you can do the same with assault rifles. The Tokyo Sarin gas attacks of 1995 killed 13 people in 5 separate attacks. The one in Colorado just killed 12 (and it's a miracle more people weren't killed) in much less time with considerably less effort.
My point is that your reasoning is totally arbitrary. Your definition of practical is arbitrary. Your decision that guns are practical for self defense and chemical gas and landmines aren't is arbitrary, and illogical to boot, since you're fundamentally already using self defense to validate something extreme. Your decision that chemical gas is a weapon of mass destruction and an assault rifle isn't is arbitrary. Please provide logic outlining why this is so. You have not yet done this, you've only stated that you believe one is practical. More fundamentally, how is owning one object whose primary purpose is killing humans practical, yet owning another object whose primary purpose is killing humans impractical and totally different?
As for you adding the assault rifles portion to your question, I never once have commented on them, so don't feel the need to defend them.
Don't care. You're defending gun ownership in the face of a tragedy that was perpetrated through the use of an assault rifle. Also, an assault rifle is a gun, apparently one which can be obtained with ease.
|
I will be out of place, but I have this brilliant vision where in Karate Kid move when kid gets bullied instead of doing martial arts he goes and gets himself a gun, then shoots all those idiots in the face.
In reality if you want to be able to defend yourself you should go and do some martial arts. they help you to keep your head cool in most stressful situations. You can do much more with cool head, where as with gun I feel people would freak out and start shooting.
I have a friend who likes to carry a gun for self defense - its low caliber though. But if I myself was in tough situations and came out without scratch I feel that he would handle "thug attack" quite poorly and get hurt quite badly - getting to the hospital badly type. Having a gun doesn't help you defend yourself at all, least in modern countries.
|
On July 26 2012 16:47 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 15:26 dp wrote:On July 26 2012 13:09 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2012 08:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo. If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking. My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me. If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill? I gave up trying to get someone to explain the difference a hundred pages ago. Perhaps I'll have more success with you. Please outline why guns (particularly assault rifles) are fundamentally different from Sarin gas/bombs/landmines. If it's so obvious then you should have no difficulty doing so. I bet you can't make a distinction between these objects that isn't completely arbitrary. You honestly need me to explain why a chemical weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is not the same as someone owning a gun? Sure. After, I expect you to actually address the point I made in my response that you quoted. it seems people like to randomly quote me for a sentence in my responses without ever responding to the actual point brought up within it. My point is that a gun is a weapon capable of mass destruction. All the proof you need occurred last week (yet again). Show nested quote +As to your question, guns have practical applications in hunting. They can be used in shooting competitions. You can go to the range and spend some time shooting one off, testing your accuracy, and generally having fun. Fine, then gun regulation presents no problem. We'll allow 1 round hunting rifles, and we'll ban private ownership of any other gun, since they can be acquired at a range for the purposes of recreational shooting. Thus, people like you will be satisfied, as guns will still be used for the "practical" applications you've described, and people like me will be satisfied, because lunatics will no longer be able to obtain handguns and assault rifles for lord knows what end. Show nested quote +What are the pratical applications for a civilian for Sarin gas? How about land mines? None? Guess that was easy huh. I excluded bombs because explosives do have practical applications and can be obtained by professionals for specific purposes. If you just want to blow shit up on your land, find out what permits you need to accomplish that and hire a professional to set things up. They will probably let you press the button. Fun times. That's your defense eh? Practicality? And I suppose it doesn't matter that we're using your own definition of practicality, which unless you can prove otherwise appears to be arbitrary. How is civilian ownership of a semi-automatic assault rifle practical? That's somehow more practical than landmines? I don't see how. The fact is we aren't discussing hunting/recreational shooting. Logically this is true, since if we were nobody with a positive IQ would have a problem with gun regulation. What we're really discussing is the right for people to own and bear guns for "self defense," and why that right trumps all other factors involved. I can defend myself with chemical gas. I can defend my house with landmines or explosives. That is my definition of practicality, no less arbitrary than your own. Do you now understand why your definition is arbitrary? For example, you are using fear-based logic to support gun-ownership. It goes like this: "What if X enters my house to do Y? I'll need a gun to defend myself." I can just as easily say "What if 5 people enter my house with guns to do Y," then conclude I'll need landmines to defend myself. The point is that both examples are irrational fear-based logic. Neither scenario is likely, but if you're committing yourself to being prepared for the unlikely extreme then why allow a gun for 1 person but not chemical gas for several people when both can be abused to kill so many people. Furthermore, when guns are abused, no fewer people die than with landmines, or even chemical gas. Yes, this is true, however many people you can kill with chemical gas, you can do the same with assault rifles. The Tokyo Sarin gas attacks of 1995 killed 13 people in 5 separate attacks. The one in Colorado just killed 12 (and it's a miracle more people weren't killed) in much less time with considerably less effort. My point is that your reasoning is totally arbitrary. Your definition of practical is arbitrary. Your decision that guns are practical for self defense and chemical gas and landmines aren't is arbitrary, and illogical to boot, since you're fundamentally already using self defense to validate something extreme. Your decision that chemical gas is a weapon of mass destruction and an assault rifle isn't is arbitrary. Please provide logic outlining why this is so. You have not yet done this, you've only stated that you believe one is practical. More fundamentally, how is owning one object whose primary purpose is killing humans practical, yet owning another object whose primary purpose is killing humans impractical and totally different? Show nested quote +As for you adding the assault rifles portion to your question, I never once have commented on them, so don't feel the need to defend them. Don't care. You're defending gun ownership in the face of a tragedy that was perpetrated through the use of an assault rifle. Also, an assault rifle is a gun, apparently one which can be obtained with ease.
Thanks for posting exactly what I wanted to post yesterday but didn't end up posting because I thought everyone would get what I'm thinking about when reading my abridged version anyways. A common mistake I do when playing mafia and if I'm not doing it I'm being flamed for posting walls of text 
This is pretty much 100% what I was trying to say. Sarin gas obviously is an exageration tbecause it is way to inaccurate to do something useful with. Aka it has literally no purpose and it should not be allowed.
Everything else though has a purpose, which is in every case completly irrelevant because we're considering it to be to dangerous to allow it for something as insignificant as "but I want to have EVERY gun there is in my collection and I don't want them to be rendered useless".
I don't see why it is completly impossible to even consider using bombs, landmines or an rpg for self defence, for recreation (I bet blowing things up with C4 or an rpg would be incredibly stress relieving though :p ) or for collection purposes while considering assault rifles to be perfectly fine.
Noone cares about a hunting rifle. Make it multiple shots for all I care but an assaultt rifle? I can't see a single reason why an assault rifle should be treated differently than trying to by some C4.
Both things are capable to kill a shitton of people when some idiot gets it in his hands.
Both things have purposes but none of those are considered to be worth a damn when talking about bombs for the general population
All of them are considered worthwhile when talking about assault rifles for the general population.
Edit:
On July 26 2012 15:26 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 13:09 sevencck wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 26 2012 08:09 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:31 Toadesstern wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Why are they not relevant?
Everything I mentioned is something specifically constructed to kill people, if possible as many as possible.
Everything I mentioned is prohibited and noone has a problem with it yelling "waaah, I want my freedom to purchase whatever I want, even if it's a nuke! I am free and I can do whatever I want!"
When it comes to weapons suddenly this principle changes and it's okay to buy automatic or semi-automatic weapons which have ZERO purpose in private usage, just like the things I mentioned.
I could use pretty much all of the above in non-dangerous ways, more or less. I could have fun constructin little things and blowing them up on my own land waching how everything get's destroyed. Mythbusters anyone?
I could use them to defend myself against someone invading me although it might be a good idea to tell the postman where to step beforehand.
I could use them as a part of a collection.
All arguments people tend to use as arguments as to why owning guns is not a problem.
These arguments are important when it comes to guns but are completly irrelevant when it comes to other things that have are created for the exact same purpose.
Why is that? Again, I really don't mind someone having a hunting-rifle to hunt or having a pistol for self-defence purposes or for shooting on a range. Those are things that at least are somewhat limited in their amount of destruction, but there is literally not a single reason to allow someone to have an automatic or semi-automatic gun imo. If you really can't see the difference between personal gun ownership and personal ownership of sarin gas(or nukes LOL), I don't know if there is a point in talking. My comment was directed at someone with a specific purpose, to pose the question of why is it important to ban the tool used for homicide but not a main contributing factor. It was directly related to the position that both alcohol and guns are used for enjoyment, and have a direct influence over the lives of others. To say that alcohol's main purpose isn't to kill, but guns are, so guns should be banned seems illogical to me. If your main purpose is to save lives, shouldn't the lives being lost from any non-necessary substance/object be compared the same? People might be more likely to kill someone with a gun. People might also be more likely to kill someone because they are drunk. Are the overall negative affects of alcohol not relevant because their main purpose is not to kill? I gave up trying to get someone to explain the difference a hundred pages ago. Perhaps I'll have more success with you. Please outline why guns (particularly assault rifles) are fundamentally different from Sarin gas/bombs/landmines. If it's so obvious then you should have no difficulty doing so. I bet you can't make a distinction between these objects that isn't completely arbitrary. + Show Spoiler +
You honestly need me to explain why a chemical weapon classified as a weapon of mass destruction is not the same as someone owning a gun? Sure. After, I expect you to actually address the point I made in my response that you quoted. it seems people like to randomly quote me for a sentence in my responses without ever responding to the actual point brought up within it.
As to your question, guns have practical applications in hunting. They can be used in shooting competitions. You can go to the range and spend some time shooting one off, testing your accuracy, and generally having fun.
What are the pratical applications for a civilian for Sarin gas? How about land mines? None? Guess that was easy huh.
I excluded bombs because explosives do have practical applications and can be obtained by professionals for specific purposes. If you just want to blow shit up on your land, find out what permits you need to accomplish that and hire a professional to set things up. They will probably let you press the button. Fun times.
I actually wouldn't mind that.
If you want to blow something up for stress relieve hire a professional and watch how he blows things up or perhaps let him set up everything statically so you can push the button!
If you want to shoot at a range hire a professional and watch how he shoots a melon into smithereens or perhaps let him set up everything statically so you can push the button while the gun is mounted to some kind of equipement so it can stand and aim on his own.
Or is that not what you want? Because if it's not for some reason you're again using different standards for those 2 things when agreeing that blowing things up can be stress relieving.
Edit2:
Just to clear things up, because I don't think I made it clear enough when posting the above:
I don't mind you guys having hunting rifles, pistols or even assault weapons, it's your choice.
The choice is irrational, based on your culture and on "but it's so much fun" when the downside is people dying.
It's sad but the same thing happens all over the place. We still have the unrestricted Autobahn where people can drive 300km/h + without having a problem and everyone knows it's dangerous to some degree, even if you know how to drive yourself because there can always happen something. Ever had someone pass when he's driving 150km/h faster than you are? That can be scary.
Still, we're sticking to our Autobahn because we want it, not because it's rational.
Same thing with assault guns. It's your culture and you want them, fine, but don't tell people it's rational and there's a good reason why those should be allowed and other things should not be allowed because there is no such reason.
|
There is no need for a citizen to own any kind of semi-automatic or automatic gun. Period. None whatsoever. If you really want a gun, the only kinds that could be vaguely necessary would be a small pistol or a hunting rifle.
|
On July 27 2012 00:09 Lagcraft wrote:
There is no need for a citizen to own any kind of semi-automatic or automatic gun. Period. None whatsoever. If you really want a gun, the only kinds that could be vaguely necessary would be a small pistol or a hunting rifle.
I can't actually think of any civilian pistols that aren't semi-automatic. I know most states don't consider revolvers (double or single action) semi-automatic, but that's splitting hairs.
|
On July 27 2012 00:09 Lagcraft wrote:
There is no need for a citizen to own any kind of semi-automatic or automatic gun. Period. None whatsoever. If you really want a gun, the only kinds that could be vaguely necessary would be a small pistol or a hunting rifle.
Besides to protect themselves from the criminals who have semi-automatic rifles.
It all depends what your view of rights and liberties are. I believe every American has the right to own whatever firearm they choose, until they do something stupid enough to lose that right. It seems the majority of people here think no one has the right to own a gun, it is a privileged the state should be able to give and take at will.
Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
Alexander Hope
|
I can see how much you know about weapon systems. Im not even from the US and know that you can buy an attachment to beef up an AR-15. And its actually not 400 dollars, but 315. The fact that you had "smithing work" done on them both, instead of just modify them with a simple attachment (dunno if it works on AKs, guess not because theyre manufactured in texas). Again, legally. Google it yourself, weapon expert.
Again, please tell me what this magic attachment is that makes an AR full auto legally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif)
