|
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. |
Its not such an unreasonable comment?
Millions of people flee their country every year because they are opressed by the government and dont want to pick up arms to fight with other rebels against it.
Manny people hate violence and will flee when threatened with it, instead of fight back with firearms
Specially if they feel they have little control or influence on the situation, like in the situation described.
@below
They feel they have little control because the government and all official institutions are against them.
There are plenty weapons around in manny countrys with civil wars,most of them never had laws against guns.
Still people flee because not everyone likes to fight, i would even dare to say that the vast majority chooses not to fight.
Am not realy judging this, the majority should probably be happy that there is a minority who chooses to fight but we have evolved so far away from having to fight for our lives every day that manny people will flee and i dont find them completely unreasonable.
"The thought that you would get scared about people owning and carrying guns legally on a bus with you makes me laugh"
That thought may make you laught, yet there is no way you could get a gun into an airplane,people would be scared if other people on an airplane had a gun, and noone finds that weird in anny way.
Is a bus realy that much different from an airplane in this situation?
|
On July 29 2012 03:45 Rassy wrote:
Its not such an unreasonable comment?
Millions of people flee their country every year because they are opressed by the government and dont want to pick up arms to fight with other rebels against it.
Manny people hate violence and will flee when threatened with it, instead of fight back with firearms
Specially if they feel they have little control or influence on the situation, like in the situation described.
That's his point. Why would they have so little control over the situation? Because they can't fight back period because they never could get guns and band together. Edit: Removed my blatant disregard for Godwin's Law. Fortunately I have been educated on the subject, and in hindsight it was incredibly rude to Jewish Americans, to whom I apologize. The red below notes that appropriate action was taken.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 29 2012 04:11 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 03:45 Rassy wrote:
Its not such an unreasonable comment?
Millions of people flee their country every year because they are opressed by the government and dont want to pick up arms to fight with other rebels against it.
Manny people hate violence and will flee when threatened with it, instead of fight back with firearms
Specially if they feel they have little control or influence on the situation, like in the situation described. That's his point. Why would they have so little control over the situation? Because they can't fight back period because they never could get guns and band together. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x1zY8.jpg) That's a humorous little take on why. Sorry for huge image.
Wow. Just wow. Using a Hitler/Nazi argument. Wow. Great. Just... great. I realize it's "humoristic", but still, it's such a terrible argument. By the way, let's ban democracy, it let Hitler become fuhrer. Must be bad.
|
On July 28 2012 14:06 ApoNow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:41 stevarius wrote:
Why should a moral debate be introduced, or even the possibility of another Constitutional amendment be discussed when the last part of the second amendment states: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Because that last part is what's ultimately wrong? You accused the article's author of distorting the arguments, yet you are the one who's distorting it yourself. It's not about whether it says so in the second amendment, it's about whether that amendment can be morally justified at this day and age. Are you saying one should never question parts of a constitution? It's not like these things are set in stone forever. It's not like the people who wrote it had enough foresight/intelligence to know that it might become a very dumb law one day. The author raises valid points and refutes dumb arguments that happen to emerge every so often in the debates about gun control. And here are the arguments he refutes from my point of view: "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People": Are you serious? Here's my take on it: Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. After all, that's what guns are for. Killing stuff. Let's give everyone a fucking nuclear weapon, because hey, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. I mean come on, let's be serious. "Fire and Drugs Kill People, Too. You Wanna Outlaw Matches and Drugs?": No, we don't want to outlaw things that are not meant for killing in the first place. We want to outlaw things that's only purpose is to kill. Guns for example. If you want to hunt, fine. Pay an annual hunting fee or whatever, prove that you are able to handle and stash it away properly and outlaw the carrying of a gun while not hunting or travelling to your hunting place. And when you or another person is in acute danger of death and you want to pull a superhero act, go ahead. But you better be able to prove that you actually were in acute danger of death, otherwise your ass should be busted. "Guns Save Lives.": Yes, they do. If my neighbor is able to toss a grenade over at my house, owning a grenade might save my life, too. Now, if I wasn't allowed to own a grenade, I'd be fucked, sure. But what are your chances of having a neighbor THAT shady? Let's give everyone the right to possess grenades because hell, there's a tiny chance that my neighbor is a maniac. Yup, sounds about right, doesn't it? "Well, the Second Amendment Says ...": Change it. That's how outdated laws should be treated after all. How did women get the right to vote again? Sorry if my tone is a bit aggressive but I'm not overly fond of the idea of sitting in a bus with the idea in mind that every passenger might carry a gun because, after all, it's his damn right (and english is only my fourth language, so that might add to it as well).
1. Guns are not responsible for the death of others. Guns are not nuclear weapons. You're practically being a fallacious dumbass making that kind of comparison.
2. Guns are not used for the sole purpose of killing and hunting. You may not agree with the validity of shooting sports in the United States, but I don't expect you to given your location.
3. Do I really need to give the 'Better to have it than not need it, than to need it and not have it speech'? When there are so many firearms in the US, the worst possible thing you could do is NOT own a firearm in the case that you find yourself being a possible crime victim.
4. The Second Amendment is not going to be changed to outlaw firearms. Don't kid yourself. You really have no idea about American culture outside of what you view on the internet. I really don't understand why that author even brought this up. It won't happen..... at all.
The thought that you would get scared about people owning and carrying guns legally on a bus with you makes me laugh. That's your personal fear that you would have to deal with. We have gun control fanatics in the states and people who are irrationally scared of them. Their fear is in the wrong place.
|
|
|
Well, since stevarius continues to dodge my question and now Godwin's law has been invoked, this thread is over for me.
I'll see all of you after the next massacre in the US that happened because there are more restrictions on getting cough syrup than firearms. We need a meth lobby.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
The Hitler thing is especially funny since gun laws were loosened quite a bit in the Third Reich. An armed and trained populace was a Nazi ideal.
|
On July 29 2012 04:20 Maxie wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Using a Hitler/Nazi argument. Wow. Great. Just... great. I realize it's "humoristic", but still, it's such a terrible argument. By the way, let's ban democracy, it let Hitler become fuhrer. Must be bad.
Actually (as Zatic pointed out) its completely false to begin with. From there, people use the nazi argument to make an ad hominem attack. My point was not the picture, the picture was there to display the sentiment behind people wanting to own guns in America. Take a look at what I bolded, then what that quote was in reply to, and then what {CC}StealthBlue was saying.
Edit: I found the hitler target funny for multiple reasons, but they were clearly out of line. Below is a dissertation of how I feel on the subject, followed by a thing I noted.
I am a moderate republican american who believes Gun control is a GREAT idea, as in it has my overwhelming support with 0 sarcasm. In fact, here's a list of what I believe the minimum parameters should be to apply for ownership:
At least 25 years of age
An intelligence test
A morality test
A physical obstacle course test
and the signing of a waiver to allow random sobriety tests at any time similar to a driver, although I think that would be the least effective of the above.
m4inbrain made me realize how rude to Jews my pic was. I'm off to PM Maxie.
Another Edit: I was going to PM but I think I should make public that I am on Rassy's side on the Bus issue. I do not use the bus for this very reason. Please explain to me how my fear than any of the drugged up ruffians I found on the bus when I rode it last having guns is irrational. Not that I think guns should be banned entirely for civilians, but I sure think we could use more control, no?
|
Damn I couldn't even shoot that Hitler look at his little smile.
|
People shouldn't even be allowed to mate.
|
On July 29 2012 05:05 zatic wrote:
The Hitler thing is especially funny since gun laws were loosened quite a bit in the Third Reich. An armed and trained populace was a Nazi ideal.
Very interesting, I didn't know that.
|
1505 Posts
On July 29 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 05:05 zatic wrote:
The Hitler thing is especially funny since gun laws were loosened quite a bit in the Third Reich. An armed and trained populace was a Nazi ideal. Very interesting, I didn't know that.
Because its not true. The gun law was changed 1938, thats correct, but the "average" joe was not affected. Two things happened, jews, homosexuals and public enemies lost their rights to carry guns, knives etc. On the other hand, some members of the NSDAP (hitlers party) could carry guns without the need of a "Waffenschein" (gun-license?).
|
On July 28 2012 08:33 Millitron wrote:
I shoot soda cans all the time. What's dying then? Am I misusing my gun? Guns are used far more often on paper targets at the range, or soda cans on private property FAR more often than they're used on living things. I'd say that means that killing is actually NOT their primary use then.
If guns would be banned, you could use a soft air gun, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your soda-can shooting in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
|
My two cents on this:
If anyone really wants to kill someone else, she/he will find a way to do it.
Also stricter firarmlaws won't change much. Imagine a world without any sort of firearms, then the guy with the knife or a black belt will be able to kill/rob/rape whatever. It may be arrogant but I think the hole discussion around firearms is just a way for populist politicians ore simple minded people to keep the discussion about why sh**t happens nice and simple. It's easy to say "guns are bad" or "guns would have prevented this" when the actual problems go way deeper. Basically poverty, unequal chances to acchieve succes and so forth (lack of english :/ but I guess you all know where I'm aiming at) are the reasons about why violence is such a harsh problem.
Tldr: It's a sad thing that politians discuss over gun laws wheras the actual problems are at best briefly mentioned.
|
On July 29 2012 05:24 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 04:20 Maxie wrote:
Wow. Just wow. Using a Hitler/Nazi argument. Wow. Great. Just... great. I realize it's "humoristic", but still, it's such a terrible argument. By the way, let's ban democracy, it let Hitler become fuhrer. Must be bad. Actually (as Zatic pointed out) its completely false to begin with. From there, people use the nazi argument to make an ad hominem attack. My point was not the picture, the picture was there to display the sentiment behind people wanting to own guns in America. Take a look at what I bolded, then what that quote was in reply to, and then what {CC}StealthBlue was saying. Edit: I found the hitler target funny for multiple reasons, but they were clearly out of line. Below is a dissertation of how I feel on the subject, followed by a thing I noted. I am a moderate republican american who believes Gun control is a GREAT idea, as in it has my overwhelming support with 0 sarcasm. In fact, here's a list of what I believe the minimum parameters should be to apply for ownership: At least 25 years of a ge An intelligence test A morality test A physical obstacle course test and the signing of a waiver to allow random sobriety tests at any time similar to a driver, although I think that would be the least effective of the above. m4inbrain made me realize how rude to Jews my pic was. I'm off to PM Maxie. Another Edit: I was going to PM but I think I should make public that I am on Rassy's side on the Bus issue. I do not use the bus for this very reason. Please explain to me how my fear than any of the drugged up ruffians I found on the bus when I rode it last having guns is irrational. Not that I think guns should be banned entirely for civilians, but I sure think we could use more control, no?
An INTELLIGENCE test? WTF is a morality test? How could anything like this be devised without being laughably ineffective/transparently obvious? And an obstacle course? 2nd amendment rights cant be limited to.only those who can knock out pullups
|
On July 29 2012 06:50 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:On July 29 2012 05:05 zatic wrote:
The Hitler thing is especially funny since gun laws were loosened quite a bit in the Third Reich. An armed and trained populace was a Nazi ideal. Very interesting, I didn't know that. Because its not true. The gun law was changed 1938, thats correct, but the "average" joe was not affected. Two things happened, jews, homosexuals and public enemies lost their rights to carry guns, knives etc. On the other hand, some members of the NSDAP (hitlers party) could carry guns without the need of a "Waffenschein" (gun-license?).
Well, that's technically not true either. First, you seem to be mixing up the change to German gun law ("Reichswaffengesetz"), which occured in March 1938, and the executive order from November 1938 ("Zweite Reichswaffengesetz-Durchführungsverordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden"). Secondly, you don't differentiate between the license to purchase guns ("Waffenerwerbsschein") and the license to carry a gun ("Waffenschein"). Third, you speak of 'guns' in disregard of the difference between handguns ("Faustwaffen") and rifles ("Langwaffen").
When the German gun law was changed in 1938, every "average Joe" was now allowed to freely purchase (but not necessarily also to carry) a rifle (but not necessarily a handgun). Jews, homosexuals, and public enemies never had a right to carry a gun in the first place - and the disarmament of Jews came from a distinct executive order. Members of the NSDAP, as well as public servants and certain professions, indeed didn't need a license to purchase handguns anymore. However, even for everybody else, that licence wasn't now needed any more to purchase rifles.
To put it shortly: Before 1938 purchasing a rifle was regulated in Germany. The 1938 gun law allowed everybody who wasn't a minor, under disability, a gypsy, a criminal, or a public enemy (§15) to purchase rifles without the need for a license.
Honestly, I think that zatic wasn't that far off with his statement regarding the loosening of gun laws in the Third Reich.
|
|
|
at the end of the day i could go and get a hand gun right now no questions asked pretty easily, however if i cant buy one legally its not suprising that only criminals have guns
|
On July 29 2012 04:20 stevarius wrote:
1. Guns are not responsible for the death of others. Guns are not nuclear weapons. You're practically being a fallacious dumbass making that kind of comparison.
2. Guns are not used for the sole purpose of killing and hunting. You may not agree with the validity of shooting sports in the United States, but I don't expect you to given your location.
3. Do I really need to give the 'Better to have it than not need it, than to need it and not have it speech'? When there are so many firearms in the US, the worst possible thing you could do is NOT own a firearm in the case that you find yourself being a possible crime victim.
4. The Second Amendment is not going to be changed to outlaw firearms. Don't kid yourself. You really have no idea about American culture outside of what you view on the internet. I really don't understand why that author even brought this up. It won't happen..... at all.
The thought that you would get scared about people owning and carrying guns legally on a bus with you makes me laugh. That's your personal fear that you would have to deal with. We have gun control fanatics in the states and people who are irrationally scared of them. Their fear is in the wrong place.
The problem is that the USA is full of idiots with guns, right? Wouldn't it be better to make it harder for them to get them, than to give non-crazy people guns and say "they'll probably solve it by shooting the criminals, seems like a legit strat"?
And regarding the #1: lol what, the poster made perfect sense and your "no, non-nuclear weapons are not nuclear"-rant is more fallacious and missing the point than that.
|
On July 28 2012 15:03 Esk23 wrote:Guns aren't even a top 10 cause of death in the United States: Number of deaths for leading causes of death Heart disease: 599,413 Cancer: 567,628 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021 Alzheimer's disease: 79,003 Diabetes: 68,705 Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935 Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005." http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/You have more people who commit SUICIDE in the United States than people who die from shootings.
Number of people killed by guns in the united states is still #1 in the world, and the rest of world has cancer and disease aswell.
Draw what conclusions you would like from that statistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
