EPTIn the end we have an heavily armed US population which at least gives the impression that firearms are necessary for self-defense. Other countries look in and they think it's pretty crazy - probably because of all the accidents, many of which involve kids. But US gun folks do have a point, it's scary being in a country with a high murder rate and a lot of guns - so more guns, more guns for everyone... And then more crazy people have guns, and everyone has a quick and clean means of taking out their husbands or wives in a fit of rage. But it doesn't matter, because they have guns too - so they can defend themselves - at least until Lil-Jimmy shoots himself in the head and becomes a statistic.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
In the end we have an heavily armed US population which at least gives the impression that firearms are necessary for self-defense. Other countries look in and they think it's pretty crazy - probably because of all the accidents, many of which involve kids. But US gun folks do have a point, it's scary being in a country with a high murder rate and a lot of guns - so more guns, more guns for everyone... And then more crazy people have guns, and everyone has a quick and clean means of taking out their husbands or wives in a fit of rage. But it doesn't matter, because they have guns too - so they can defend themselves - at least until Lil-Jimmy shoots himself in the head and becomes a statistic. | ||
|
TotalNightmare
Germany139 Posts
Murder is in most cases simply in situations of high emotional stress and if theres a gun or a knife at hand somone dies, otherwise NOT. And when there's a gun in a locker just upstairs it is just so mutch more likely that you shoot somone than it is when you have to walk down a shady alley and talk to a shady dealer to maybe get a gun. The situation that the US is in now makes it VERY difficult to introduce gun control: EVERYBODY has a gun. And that makes it nearly impossible to even convince people that they should get rid of their guns because EVERYBODY ELSE has one. Generally I think that firearms shouldnt have been invented in the first place and then certainly not ben given to civilians and only to police and army, in a nearly unrachable scenario ONLY army. All that is only my opinion but I'm pretty sure that it's a bit more right than others. And if you ask me if gun controll should be introduced in the US now: Absolutely not. First the complete law system would have to be changed and the media would have to stop make people paranoid. | ||
|
Markasaurus
United States16 Posts
| ||
OsoVega
926 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:47 Markasaurus wrote: Should people be allowed to own and carry guns? Um yes. It's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Now stop debating it. It's not just that. You also have to understand where the Constitution came from and it's philosophical basis. Until the American people understand these things, the Constitution is just going to be eroded further and further. Your argument doesn't hold water anymore because the philosophy that gave rise to the constitution is now all but dead. We're also fighting for our gun rights in places outside the United States. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:34 Djzapz wrote: It's sad that we're in a world where this discussion is worth having, and it becomes a discussion in which both sides take the moral high ground when any necessity for firearms is nothing but a symptom of a very sick and twisted bunch. In the end we have an heavily armed US population which at least gives the impression that firearms are necessary for self-defense. Other countries look in and they think it's pretty crazy - probably because of all the accidents, many of which involve kids. But US gun folks do have a point, it's scary being in a country with a high murder rate and a lot of guns - so more guns, more guns for everyone... And then more crazy people have guns, and everyone has a quick and clean means of taking out their husbands or wives in a fit of rage. But it doesn't matter, because they have guns too - so they can defend themselves - at least until Lil-Jimmy shoots himself in the head and becomes a statistic. I wonder if they said the same thing about household swords and spears 3000 years ago. Here's an idea, don't leave a gun loaded, fire-ready, in an unlocked contrainer, reachable by Lil-Jimmy. Teach Lil-Jimmy that the gun is not a toy, allow him to see it operated by yourself (being his father, in this example) in a safe and legal way, such as at a range, so that he knows it's not a toy, and that the mystery involved in guns goes away and he has no reason to explore. The whole guns don't kill people, people kill people argument is moronic at best, obviously guns make killing a lot easier. But people were killed before guns. They'll be killed after guns too. The difference between having an armed society and an unarmed one, and I'm taking the Machiavelli route here, is that an unarmed society is powerless, much like an unarmed leader. If you 'own' a nation, and you're on the path of conquest, who is your next target, the country where 10-25% of the people own guns, or the country in which less than 1% own guns? I'm thinking you're going for the easier target. If your own government goes crazy one day, as governments have often proved to do, would you rather be unarmed against the government forces, or would you rather have a gun at your side? If someone breaks into your house with a machete (note: he's not breaking in with a gun, to play off the idea that guns don't exist in your country), tell me, would you rather defend your family with a steak knife, or a pistol? I'm working off the notion that power is directly related to your ability to impart death upon others. Not all power, granted, but the fastest, cheapest, most efficient forms of power are all related to the immediate projection of violence upon others. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it. As a citizen of your own country, if you're willing to trust your government with your life, and your family members' lives, then go right ahead. And as a citizen of the world, if you're willing to trust your life to the fact that your neighbors don't want to kill you (laughable considering you live next to the US), go ahead. But for me? No, I won't give up this power. History has taught me of the need for auxiliary precautions. If Lil-Jimmy blows his brains out, that's sad, but if something like that happened then his parents were so stupid the kid was liable to stab himself in the throat while running with scissors, or drown in the bathtub, or drink a bottle of drain cleaner. The tools in our homes which can be used to cause death are abundant, and guns get a bad rep because they happen to be the most efficient, albeit the most complicated. They're no more dangerous to a kid than a wall socket (read: an everyday tool which can very easily kill a child) if you teach your kid about them in the correct way, and you keep the gun away from the kid. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
| ||
|
clementdudu
France819 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:47 Markasaurus wrote: Should people be allowed to own and carry guns? Um yes. It's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Now stop debating it. Should you believe its a US only thread?Um no. its not about europeans debating whether us should have this right,its about thinking if anyone should have the right to own and carry a gun. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:50 Chargelot wrote: I wonder if they said the same thing about household swords and spears 3000 years ago. Here's an idea, don't leave a gun loaded, fire-ready, in an unlocked contrainer, reachable by Lil-Jimmy. Teach Lil-Jimmy that the gun is not a toy, allow him to see it operated by yourself (being his father, in this example) in a safe and legal way, such as at a range, so that he knows it's not a toy, and that the mystery involved in guns goes away and he has no reason to explore.. Yeah, then carry him to the Shrine of Love where he'll learn that every father in the world is competent, and people are very nice and capable. The whole guns don't kill people, people kill people argument is moronic at best, obviously guns make killing a lot easier. But people were killed before guns. They'll be killed after guns too. The difference between having an armed society and an unarmed one, and I'm taking the Machiavelli route here, is that an unarmed society is powerless, much like an unarmed leader. Not so much now that the civilized world is emerging, plenty of countries have minimal "defense" forces because they have no enemies. They're still powerful because of their effect on the economy and such. If someone breaks into your house with a machete (note: he's not breaking in with a gun, to play off the idea that guns don't exist in your country), tell me, would you rather defend your family with a steak knife, or a pistol? I'd rather live in a society where someone has to bring a machete than one where he may have a gun. That said, if people do have guns and do have a tendency to attack others (like in the US), I may want a gun too. That said, I'm in Quebec - people don't have many guns, and rarely attack people with them. Nor do they attack people with machetes. If your own government goes crazy one day, as governments have often proved to do, would you rather be unarmed against the government forces, or would you rather have a gun at your side? Oh that depends. In the case of dictatorships, then I would rather have a gun. In the case of a superpower like the US, the population with their little rubberband launchers don't stand a chance, and shooting at the military will just wake up a sleeping giant that'll eat rubberbands for breakfast. If the US gvt. went crazy and I lived there, I'd be smart enough to realize that fighting for my country would be a lost cause unless they military also turned. If the US went bad, the military would decide what happened next, not the people. And if the people shot at the military, I think that the military would agree with the government  The second amendment is good because the US would be MAJESTIC at surviving the zombie apocalypse. But in the end, I don't think it saves many lives. Guns may be good to have now, maybe not, I don't know - but I think that from the get-go, the second amendment was a bad thing and partially explains the high murder rate in the US. It's also a silly part of the US identity. *50% we're clever and have lots of inventions under our belt, which made human development fucking awesome *50% GUNS YEEEEHAWWW! Having to defend yourself from trashy individuals is nothing worth yeeehaw'ing about. =( | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:06 Djzapz wrote: Yeah, then carry him to the Shrine of Love where he'll learn that every father in the world is competent, and people are very nice and capable. Not so much now that the civilized world is emerging, plenty of countries have minimal "defense" forces because they have no enemies. They're still powerful because of their effect on the economy and such. I'd rather live in a society where someone has to bring a machete than one where he may have a gun. That said, if people do have guns and do have a tendency to attack others (like in the US), I may want a gun too. That said, I'm in Quebec - people don't have many guns, and rarely attack people with them. Nor do they attack people with machetes. Oh that depends. In the case of dictatorships, then I would rather have a gun. In the case of a superpower like the US, the population with their little rubberband launchers don't stand a chance, and shooting at the military will just wake up a sleeping giant that'll eat rubberbands for breakfast. If the US gvt. went crazy and I lived there, I'd be smart enough to realize that fighting for my country would be a lost cause unless they military also turned. If the US went bad, the military would decide what happened next, not the people. And if the people shot at the military, I think that the military would agree with the government The second amendment is good because the US would be MAJESTIC at surviving the zombie apocalypse. But in the end, I don't think it saves many lives. Guns may be good to have now, maybe not, I don't know - but I think that from the get-go, the second amendment was a bad thing and partially explains the high murder rate in the US. It's also a silly part of the US identity. *50% we're clever and have lots of inventions under our belt, which made human development fucking awesome *50% GUNS YEEEEHAWWW! Having to defend yourself from trashy individuals is nothing worth yeeehaw'ing about. =( 1) If you fight a normal war against the US military, you're right, you don't stand a chance. BUT, if you fight a guerrilla war, you almost can't lose. You take potshots, set up traps, and avoid big battles, and slowly tire them out. Plus, every time they score a victory, they just angered the populace even more and bred more rebels. Look how well it worked for Vietnam, and how well it's been working in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2) They can't bring their full power to bear on their own soil. If they were to start leveling cities, they'd be destroying the very things they were trying to control. Its counter-productive. Not to mention the international response. The rebels would almost certainly get foreign support, clandestine or otherwise, if the military was so openly oppressive. I've posted this several other times in this thread. Hopefully you'll read it this time. | ||
|
Tippereth
United States252 Posts
On February 20 2012 07:47 Markasaurus wrote: Should people be allowed to own and carry guns? Um yes. It's called the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Now stop debating it. The original Constitution didn't prohibit slavery or grant non-white males the right to vote. It was never designed to be an immutable document, which is why an amendment process exists. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
| ||
|
TheDraken
United States640 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:00 clementdudu wrote: Should you believe its a US only thread?Um no. its not about europeans debating whether us should have this right,its about thinking if anyone should have the right to own and carry a gun. rofl. i enjoy when one of us comes on here and is like "yea that's the way it fucking is in america. end debate." especially when the person gets angry and is wondering why you're such a lousy american. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:06 Djzapz wrote: Yeah, then carry him to the Shrine of Love where he'll learn that every father in the world is competent, and people are very nice and capable. Not so much now that the civilized world is emerging, plenty of countries have minimal "defense" forces because they have no enemies. They're still powerful because of their effect on the economy and such. I'd rather live in a society where someone has to bring a machete than one where he may have a gun. That said, if people do have guns and do have a tendency to attack others (like in the US), I may want a gun too. That said, I'm in Quebec - people don't have many guns, and rarely attack people with them. Nor do they attack people with machetes. Oh that depends. In the case of dictatorships, then I would rather have a gun. In the case of a superpower like the US, the population with their little rubberband launchers don't stand a chance, and shooting at the military will just wake up a sleeping giant that'll eat rubberbands for breakfast. If the US gvt. went crazy and I lived there, I'd be smart enough to realize that fighting for my country would be a lost cause unless they military also turned. If the US went bad, the military would decide what happened next, not the people. And if the people shot at the military, I think that the military would agree with the government The second amendment is good because the US would be MAJESTIC at surviving the zombie apocalypse. But in the end, I don't think it saves many lives. Guns may be good to have now, maybe not, I don't know - but I think that from the get-go, the second amendment was a bad thing and partially explains the high murder rate in the US. It's also a silly part of the US identity. *50% we're clever and have lots of inventions under our belt, which made human development fucking awesome *50% GUNS YEEEEHAWWW! Having to defend yourself from trashy individuals is nothing worth yeeehaw'ing about. =( I believe you did suggest that if we abolish all guns, no one will ever want power. The civilized world, as you put it, is a big fucking bullseye. When everyone disarms themselves but one guy, that one guy owns everyone else. I'd hate to say it, but if in 100 years Europe got rid of all their guns and solved all their problems nonviolently, in 101 years they'd be the United States of America v2.0. Again, if you want to trust the idea that no one in the future of all mankind will ever raise a gun against your people, then the "civilized world" argument makes great sense. But if one bastard keeps his gun, getting rid of yours only makes you vulnerable to him. | ||
|
Slakter
Sweden1947 Posts
Of course this means that it should be incredibly tough to get a license for both cops, soldiers and civilians. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:11 Elegy wrote: Why are people quoting the 2nd Amendment? At least remember the beginning of it..."a well regulated militia"...that phrase has just a slightly important implication of the extent to bear arms, no? Allowing the people to own weapons is a big step towards a well-regulated militia. As has been said before, the whole point behind the 2nd Amendment wasn't to allow people to defend themselves against thieves or murderers, but rather against tyrants. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:11 Elegy wrote: Why are people quoting the 2nd Amendment? At least remember the beginning of it..."a well regulated militia"...that phrase has just a slightly important implication of the extent to bear arms, no? | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:13 Slakter wrote: As long as the army and the police have the right to wear arms I think the population should have the same rights. Of course this means that it should be incredibly tough to get a license for both cops, soldiers and civilians. I can definitely agree that the process should be more stringent, or at least recorded. In my state I can buy any long gun, and as long as the gun meets federal standards (16 inch barrel for rifles, 18.5 inch barrel for shotguns, etc), I don't even have to tell ANYONE that I own the gun. I believe to some degree all gun owners should be on some sort of government database, not like a terrorist watch list, but just a "Chargelot owns this gun, bought it on this day, and this is his address" kind of thing. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:11 Elegy wrote: Why are people quoting the 2nd Amendment? At least remember the beginning of it..."a well regulated militia"...that phrase has just a slightly important implication of the extent to bear arms, no? Yes, but there's at least one comma too many in there, so it's hard to tell what the writers were actually trying to say. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On February 20 2012 08:16 Hertzy wrote: Yes, but there's at least one comma too many in there, so it's hard to tell what the writers were actually trying to say. What is written is near meaningless compared to how it is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if they meant "you can only own a gun if you're in a militia", that's not the way it went. And it would be the writers faults, after all they were the ones who imparted this power of interpretation onto the Supreme Court. | ||
| ||
