|
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 29 2012 09:01 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If you want to make a point in the terms of deciding where to draw the line on civilian ownership of weaponry, making a comparison between small arms and a nuclear weapon is not the comparison to make.
You already have to go through a background check to purchase a firearm and go through an even more rigorous and thorough process to carry it concealed or open(varies by state law). What more do you want the government to do in order to try and prevent crazies from attaining them? Force them to be psychologically evaluated before every gun and ammunition purchase? I'm all for listening to valid suggestions as to how to make it a better system in terms of preventing potential future maniacs from firearm ownership without screwing over those who obey the law and own firearms responsibly.
And yeah... pretty sure this article proves you wrong? And I don't see how your nuclear-shit-thingy makes any sense lol.
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed?
All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal.
|
On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed?
All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal.
We should equip all our soldiers with another weapons, because apperently there is something just as deadily as firearms!
|
On July 29 2012 10:56 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 10:40 stevarius wrote:
He could have just as easily killed him with another weapon. I don't recall guns being controlled by Skynet and doing the killing on their own. The responsible party for the death of that salesman is the irresponsible gun owner, NOT the firearm. Do you blame drug overdoses on the drug or on the moron who overdosed?
All you have shown is that some batshit crazy man killed an innocent salesman. I don't care what he used to do it or how he did it, just that he murdered another person. Also, bullets are responsible for the damage done to the body if you want to be literal. We should equip all our soldiers with another weapons, because apperently there is something just as deadily as firearms!
Who needs weapons for soldiers when you have airplanes doing all the work?
I'm not even sure what to say to you. A knife is just as easily a viable weapon in certain scenarios as a firearm. Let's not examine why soldiers have the weapons they are given because they definitely aren't deployed with weapons that are able to shoot out to the ranges of their average hostile engagements. Nope, not at all.
Why would you make the comparison between civilian and military firearm possession? What the fuck? Why do I even post in this thread anymore?
|
"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun?
Indeed you should stay away from this thread. 
|
On July 29 2012 11:47 furymonkey wrote:"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun? Indeed you should stay away from this thread.
In close proximity.
If that man wanted him dead, you bet your ass he a poor chance at getting out alive. He probably would have bled out from knife wounds before help arrived. He also could have died from blunt force trauma from fists, etc. I can list ways for him to have died on that guys lawn all day. Blaming the gun for the murder of a person is not the solution. THAT is my point,but you can feel free to sidetrack into that discussion with someone who actually wants to talk about that. If you're so interested in it, Cracked has another really shitty article where they claim 95% of people survive gunshot wounds if not hit in the head or heart and still have a beating heart when they arrive at the ER, according to some doctor.
|
On July 29 2012 11:47 furymonkey wrote:"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun? Indeed you should stay away from this thread.
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
On July 29 2012 07:20 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +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...
If alcohol would be banned, you could drink soda, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your beer-drinking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
If smoking would be banned, you could chew gum, or would that be terribly boring all of a sudden?
If you're not willing to give up your smoking in favor of saving lives then that's sad...
I can go on like this all day.
|
|
|
Zurich15366 Posts
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?).
As Poffel pointed out correctly, it is very much true. Your average Hans did indeed have way easier access to guns and ammunition in the Third Reich.
A one minute google search would have revealed that. But sure, why not just claim something different without any proof or reason whatsoever.
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess.
Have you ever read the constitution? serious question.
|
On July 29 2012 14:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:16 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess. Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess. Have you ever read the constitution? serious question. edit: that goes for both of you.
Have you not seen the bill in regards to national reciprocity? The federal level will never control firearm licensing but it CAN help in regards to reciprocity of permits to carry.
|
On July 29 2012 14:23 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 14:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 stevarius wrote:On July 28 2012 09:59 Defacer wrote:On July 28 2012 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In every state I know the firearm laws for, you do not need a license to have a gun in your house, even if it's on you. It varies. Most states you do not need a licence or permit to purchase or own a gun. Some more relaxed states allow 'open carry'. Some issue licences that allow for concealed carry, but some don't. Some states in addition have 'Castle' Laws (your allowed to use deadly force on your property, regardless if an intruder is armed or not) and 'Stand your Ground' Laws (allowed to kill if you believe if your in imminent danger). On top of federal and state laws, cities have their own by-laws. In short, it's a mess. Which is why there needs to be a federal law concerning open/conceal carry to allow for all law-abiding citizens to be able to do it and carry national reciprocity. States doing it is just a huge mess. Have you ever read the constitution? serious question. edit: that goes for both of you. Have you not seen the bill in regards to national reciprocity? The federal level will never control firearm licensing but it CAN help in regards to reciprocity of permits to carry.
Sorry, I misread your statement. I had originally wrote it for the guy ahead of you.
fixed it.
|
On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 11:47 furymonkey wrote:"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun? Indeed you should stay away from this thread. Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
Sounds interesting, do you have the source for this?
|
On July 29 2012 14:53 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 12:36 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2012 11:47 furymonkey wrote:"Certain scenarios", yes, so you're saying that the salesman would have equal chance of ending up dead if the man pulls out a knife instead of a gun? Indeed you should stay away from this thread. Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time. Sounds interesting, do you have the source for this?
I'd be willing to show you in person as long as I'm the one wielding the knife.
Mythbusters did something similar to this claim by drawing from a holster with a knifed man. They did it with the wrong kind of holster, but it shows how fast people can close distance and stab you before you get a chance at drawing a weapon from your holster and firing it in the hopes of not getting seriously injured or killed.
There is a source out there other than this, but this is a decent visual source you can look up in addition to this one.
|
All possession laws should be relaxed and law enforcement should be retasked from regulation enforcement to actually going after criminals.
|
No. No guns, no gun-related deaths/violence.
|
On July 29 2012 15:08 Le French wrote:
No. No guns, no gun-related deaths/violence.
This is probably the stupidest comment I have ever read.
Yes, there is still going to be gun related death/violence... it's called the BLACK MARKET.
|
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
This guy had body armour on.... But you knew that right?
Just wondering how an unemployed college graduate could afford to buy 20,000 worth of guns , armour and ammunition?
|
On July 29 2012 16:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
Studies have shown that inside 20 feet, a man armed with a knife will defeat a man armed with a gun. Not every time, but the knife guy still wins the majority of the time.
This guy had body armour on.... But you knew that right? Just wondering how an unemployed college graduate could afford to buy 20,000 worth of guns , armour and ammunition?
Way to take everything completely out of context!
To answer your question, it was not 20k. It was probably closer to 10k. He probably bought the items with student loans and grants. Also he probably had a stipend and/or a paid position in his graduate program until ended up leaving it.
|
my take on this:
as a new zealander, where even police rarely carry guns, the law works well. but what people don't understand is from the time i spent in chicago that if you made that law it would be ridiculous unless you got rid of a LOT of guns, which would be impossible. i know they tried the trading in guns for 100$(?) but i don't think that was thaat succesful..
in 18 years i've seen a gun twice in new zealand
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
