|
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 31 2012 17:10 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 16:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 16:49 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote:
It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns.
How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store?
Go find criminal and buy from him?
And the criminal would sell it to him?
Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller.
It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacksCriminals find a way. Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians. No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they are very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier. You are arguing killing sprees by lunatics are just as likely to happen in "gun free" countries. I don't even necessarily disagree, but you keep mentioning Norway and Germany - both countries with a high rate of privately owned guns. In the context of a lunatic committing a mass shooting with legally owned guns it makes zero difference if they are owned for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. It may be a different article, but it's the same source and it's just as wrong. I am sorry but I really can't take a source seriously that completely makes up a school shooting in two different articles.
There is a big difference in gun laws between Germany and USA is what I'm been getting at. In the USA, gun ownership is a lot more free than it is in Germany. Is it not? You need to get specific licenses to have guns in Germany and they are mostly for hunting/sporting purposes. Otherwise you need to give a very good reason why you wish to own a gun if not for hunting/sporting purposes. My point was mass shooting sprees happen regardless if a country is more open to civilian gun ownership or if a country has very strict gun laws like Germany or the UK. A madman can easily kill a bunch of people with almost any gun, and a law abiding citizen who's licensed to carry a firearm can just as easily take him out.
|
On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes.
You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not.
|
On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this where our US government intentionally gave them guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not.
Do you really believe that citiziens with automatic weapons will be able to fight a tyranny, i.e. the U.S. army?
Furthermore its noones right to attack another person with the sole interest to kill him, that said you shouldn't be allowed to own, carry or be able to obtain weapons that are meant for killing (Nato caliber and above).
|
Zurich15310 Posts
Esk23: As I said I don't disagree. It just makes my head hurt to read an entire article that is wrong from start to finish. (I just kept reading, it's mind boggling really - "Take Switzerland, which has very liberal concealed carry laws" ... really?).
|
On July 31 2012 17:17 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:10 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 16:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 16:49 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote:
It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns.
How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store?
Go find criminal and buy from him?
And the criminal would sell it to him?
Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller.
It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacksCriminals find a way. Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians. No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they are very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier. You are arguing killing sprees by lunatics are just as likely to happen in "gun free" countries. I don't even necessarily disagree, but you keep mentioning Norway and Germany - both countries with a high rate of privately owned guns. In the context of a lunatic committing a mass shooting with legally owned guns it makes zero difference if they are owned for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. It may be a different article, but it's the same source and it's just as wrong. I am sorry but I really can't take a source seriously that completely makes up a school shooting in two different articles. There is a big difference in gun laws between Germany and USA is what I'm been getting at. In the USA, gun ownership is a lot more free than it is in Germany. Is it not? You need to get specific licenses to have guns in Germany and they are mostly for hunting/sporting purposes. Otherwise you need to give a very good reason why you wish to own a gun if not for hunting/sporting purposes. My point was mass shooting sprees happen regardless if a country is more open to civilian gun ownership or if a country has very strict gun laws like Germany or the UK. A madman can easily kill a bunch of people with almost any gun, and a law abiding citizen who's licensed to carry a firearm can just as easily take him out.
They happen regardless of the gun laws ? I wonder why the last mass shooting in Germany was in 2009 then, while there's multiple mass shootings every year in the US.
I think i'll take my chances with strict gun laws.
|
On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not.
In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status.
Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".
I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing.
|
On July 31 2012 17:37 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:17 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:10 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 16:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 16:49 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote:
It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns.
How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store?
Go find criminal and buy from him?
And the criminal would sell it to him?
Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller.
It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacksCriminals find a way. Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians. No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they are very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier. You are arguing killing sprees by lunatics are just as likely to happen in "gun free" countries. I don't even necessarily disagree, but you keep mentioning Norway and Germany - both countries with a high rate of privately owned guns. In the context of a lunatic committing a mass shooting with legally owned guns it makes zero difference if they are owned for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. It may be a different article, but it's the same source and it's just as wrong. I am sorry but I really can't take a source seriously that completely makes up a school shooting in two different articles. There is a big difference in gun laws between Germany and USA is what I'm been getting at. In the USA, gun ownership is a lot more free than it is in Germany. Is it not? You need to get specific licenses to have guns in Germany and they are mostly for hunting/sporting purposes. Otherwise you need to give a very good reason why you wish to own a gun if not for hunting/sporting purposes. My point was mass shooting sprees happen regardless if a country is more open to civilian gun ownership or if a country has very strict gun laws like Germany or the UK. A madman can easily kill a bunch of people with almost any gun, and a law abiding citizen who's licensed to carry a firearm can just as easily take him out. They happen regardless of the gun laws ? I wonder why the last mass shooting in Germany was in 2009 then, while there's multiple mass shootings every year in the US. I think i'll take my chances with strict gun laws.
There is a bit of population difference there if you hadn't noticed. Probability and all that good stuff. Per capita may still be higher in the US, I'm not sure, but that isn't really a fair comparison.
|
On July 31 2012 17:55 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:37 Nizaris wrote:On July 31 2012 17:17 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:10 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 16:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 16:49 zatic wrote:On July 31 2012 08:13 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote:
It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns.
How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store?
Go find criminal and buy from him?
And the criminal would sell it to him?
Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller.
It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden "In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy." "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacksCriminals find a way. Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians. No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they are very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier. You are arguing killing sprees by lunatics are just as likely to happen in "gun free" countries. I don't even necessarily disagree, but you keep mentioning Norway and Germany - both countries with a high rate of privately owned guns. In the context of a lunatic committing a mass shooting with legally owned guns it makes zero difference if they are owned for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. It may be a different article, but it's the same source and it's just as wrong. I am sorry but I really can't take a source seriously that completely makes up a school shooting in two different articles. There is a big difference in gun laws between Germany and USA is what I'm been getting at. In the USA, gun ownership is a lot more free than it is in Germany. Is it not? You need to get specific licenses to have guns in Germany and they are mostly for hunting/sporting purposes. Otherwise you need to give a very good reason why you wish to own a gun if not for hunting/sporting purposes. My point was mass shooting sprees happen regardless if a country is more open to civilian gun ownership or if a country has very strict gun laws like Germany or the UK. A madman can easily kill a bunch of people with almost any gun, and a law abiding citizen who's licensed to carry a firearm can just as easily take him out. They happen regardless of the gun laws ? I wonder why the last mass shooting in Germany was in 2009 then, while there's multiple mass shootings every year in the US. I think i'll take my chances with strict gun laws. There is a bit of population difference there if you hadn't noticed. Probability and all that good stuff. Per capita may still be higher in the US, I'm not sure, but that isn't really a fair comparison.
His conclusion is correct, if he decides where to habitate based on how many shootings there are per inhabitant.
|
On July 30 2012 02:38 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2012 16:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
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? You know the guy actually didn't have bullet proof equipment, right?
I am just quoting from usatoday.... This is what the police in Aurora are saying
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-holmes/56373668/1
Holmes is suspected of shooting 70 people in a sold-out movie theater. Police say he decked himself out in full-body armor for the attack and dyed his hair red.
James Eagan Holmes, 24, legally bought the four weapons he allegedly used. Police said he opened fire in the suburban Denver theater with four sold-out showings of the premiere of the Batman movie Dark Knight Rises. He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector. He wore a gas mask, goggles and black gloves.
|
On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes.
Private citizens owned cannons in that time and were a pretty big factor in the revolutionary war, just to put that in perspective.
|
guns dont kill people.
people kill people.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 01 2012 01:12 b0mBerMan wrote:
guns dont kill people.
people kill people.
People with guns have an easier time killing people than people with baseball bats or knives.
You go ahead and try injuring 50+ people and killing 12 with a knife, hell, a sword. Good luck.
|
In the US happen the most crimes involving guns in any western country. Guys running postal with guns, gang shootings and just all around gun violence is just more common in the US than in any other western country. US citizens should accept that and not like some people in this discussion deny reality.
Of course this raises the question how this problem can be solved, how can gun violence be reduced to a somehow "acceptable" level? Is prohibition of guns and forbidding citizens to carry guns the way to go? I don't think so, there are just to many guns in society. Statistically ever US citizen owns several guns (would be nice if somebody could deliver exact numbers). Prohibition would just create a huge black market, where the everyday Joe could make some extra bucks.
Seeing that a big part of this gun violence happens in the younger demographics of society (running postal, gang violence), society must find ways to make it harder for young people/nutjobs in disguise to purchase guns. How could this be achieved?
Stop selling weapons in supermarkets. Weapons should just be sold in weapon shops, where competent employers should not just sell weapons, but also inform potential buyers about gun safety ( how to store guns in a way that children cannot gain access to them etc.).
Weapon shops must register every gun they sell. Name and demographic info about the buyer. If the buyer re-sells his gun, he must do the same. If a gun is used in a crime, the guy who sold the gangster the gun must pay a fine if he could not have a clue that he sold a gun to a potential criminal. If he knowingly sold to a gang member or another problematic demographic --> Jailtime. If a seller fails to take and store info regarding the buyer--> big fine.
The background checking system must become much more efficient. The newest nutjob (the wannabe joker) had no problem getting automatic weapons legally, although he is a proper nutjob who already was in psychatric treatment. The barriers, especially for demographics which are prone to gun violence, to purchase guns legally should be set much higher (no criminal record, no substance abuse, no psychological disorders, no gang affiliations). Of course the bureacratic expenditure of the system will rise to even take all this measures but american society should finally have a debate if the chance of reducing gun violence wouldn't be worth it.
In the US political landscape this discussion does not really take place, apart from hysterical screaming ala "only from my dead hands" to "no guns et all". A serious discussion surely looks different, not including all this black or white demagogy.
Of course the two points raised above are no thought out, practical political solutions, but they might give some ideas to think about 2 central problems in America regarding gun violence:
1. Happens far to often, especially if you take international comparisons into account.
2. Literally every nutjob can get all kind of weapons legally, even if he is batshit insane.
Perhaps they also give motivation to think about other possible solutions and problems, since the problem surely won't be fixed over night (US politicians love easy and fast solutions, if they are not possible, the problem just vanishes out of public speeches, same as in my country btw.) and it will definately be a long way.
Congratulations if you read all that btw.
|
On July 31 2012 17:14 CV-Mackh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 16:58 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 16:27 patermatrix wrote:On July 31 2012 16:17 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 14:23 Elegy wrote:On July 31 2012 13:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote:
Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon? Specify That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for. on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no? And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better. Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident. At least no worse? Definitely not. You're assuming I would fire without being absolutely sure of my actions. Most states require a permit to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the process for acquiring said permit includes a safety course/test. A huge tenant of gun safety is to be absolutely sure of your target. The only people legally carrying weapons would be people who've taken and passed said test. I heard you can get a free 22 if you open a bank account, that sound like everybody knows what they are doing, right ? And I have a car, I passed my security test to have a licence, does that automaticly prevent me from going up to 200 km/h (124 m/h  )drunk as shit in a playground because I hate those little bastard kids that are always looking happier than me ? "We have a licence" has never been a really valid argument to justify that people will only use a tool with respect and calm  restrain the possession of dangerous tools to people that actually need them ( cops, military, security employees ) seems logical to me. But fuck me right I am french, what do I know about you guys great cowboys of the west. And hunters if they had some respect for the animals, would not go around carrying heavy weaponery, but a knife and a bow, old school rambo style :D.
1) I don't know where you heard about that free 22, but I never have.
2) .22's are barely more dangerous than BB guns. I've seen small woodland animals completely ignore being hit by them.
3) Carrying a gun in public has always required more extensive licensing than simply owning one. I own a small rifle, but I can't carry it in public because I don't have the license.
4) Licensing CAN help ensure that everyone is responsible when the licensing requires effort to get. Plus, since it isn't for something as absolutely necessary as a car, only people actually capable of being responsible would even bother trying to get it.
5) Guns are actually much more humane than bows. A good shot with a hunting rifle will kill a deer almost instantly. Almost all kill shots with bows take much longer, requiring the animal to suffer unnecessarily.
On July 31 2012 17:34 BeHave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this where our US government intentionally gave them guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. Do you really believe that citiziens with automatic weapons will be able to fight a tyranny, i.e. the U.S. army? Furthermore its noones right to attack another person with the sole interest to kill him, that said you shouldn't be allowed to own, carry or be able to obtain weapons that are meant for killing (Nato caliber and above).
Yes, they will be able to fight a tyranny. No, they would never win a straight up fight, but they don't have to. They can wage a guerrilla war. No military on Earth could defeat a determined partisan force, especially when all the logistics are at risk. The US military couldn't even stop guerrillas in Vietnam, and the VC couldn't even threaten any production or logistical targets. Partisans in the continental US could threaten every factory, refinery, power plant, dam, levee, canal, airfield, highway, bridge, and radio tower in the country. No force on Earth could protect all of that with any efficiency.
Hell, even just starting forest fires is a valid tactic. It takes an insane amount of manpower to fight a big fire, even when people aren't shooting at you.
|
On August 01 2012 02:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:14 CV-Mackh wrote:On July 31 2012 16:58 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 16:27 patermatrix wrote:On July 31 2012 16:17 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 14:23 Elegy wrote:On July 31 2012 13:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote:
Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon? Specify That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for. on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no? And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better. Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident. At least no worse? Definitely not. You're assuming I would fire without being absolutely sure of my actions. Most states require a permit to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the process for acquiring said permit includes a safety course/test. A huge tenant of gun safety is to be absolutely sure of your target. The only people legally carrying weapons would be people who've taken and passed said test. I heard you can get a free 22 if you open a bank account, that sound like everybody knows what they are doing, right ? And I have a car, I passed my security test to have a licence, does that automaticly prevent me from going up to 200 km/h (124 m/h )drunk as shit in a playground because I hate those little bastard kids that are always looking happier than me ? "We have a licence" has never been a really valid argument to justify that people will only use a tool with respect and calm restrain the possession of dangerous tools to people that actually need them ( cops, military, security employees ) seems logical to me. But fuck me right I am french, what do I know about you guys great cowboys of the west. And hunters if they had some respect for the animals, would not go around carrying heavy weaponery, but a knife and a bow, old school rambo style :D. 1) I don't know where you heard about that free 22, but I never have. 2) .22's are barely more dangerous than BB guns. I've seen small woodland animals completely ignore being hit by them. 3) Carrying a gun in public has always required more extensive licensing than simply owning one. I own a small rifle, but I can't carry it in public because I don't have the license. 4) Licensing CAN help ensure that everyone is responsible when the licensing requires effort to get. Plus, since it isn't for something as absolutely necessary as a car, only people actually capable of being responsible would even bother trying to get it. 5) Guns are actually much more humane than bows. A good shot with a hunting rifle will kill a deer almost instantly. Almost all kill shots with bows take much longer, requiring the animal to suffer unnecessarily.
He got the thing with the bank account/free gun handed to you from a Michael Moore documentary (was it the Columbine one?). Take that as you will.
|
On August 01 2012 02:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:14 CV-Mackh wrote:On July 31 2012 16:58 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 16:27 patermatrix wrote:On July 31 2012 16:17 Millitron wrote:On July 31 2012 14:23 Elegy wrote:On July 31 2012 13:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote:
Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon? Specify That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for. on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no? And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better. Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident. At least no worse? Definitely not. You're assuming I would fire without being absolutely sure of my actions. Most states require a permit to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the process for acquiring said permit includes a safety course/test. A huge tenant of gun safety is to be absolutely sure of your target. The only people legally carrying weapons would be people who've taken and passed said test. I heard you can get a free 22 if you open a bank account, that sound like everybody knows what they are doing, right ? And I have a car, I passed my security test to have a licence, does that automaticly prevent me from going up to 200 km/h (124 m/h )drunk as shit in a playground because I hate those little bastard kids that are always looking happier than me ? "We have a licence" has never been a really valid argument to justify that people will only use a tool with respect and calm restrain the possession of dangerous tools to people that actually need them ( cops, military, security employees ) seems logical to me. But fuck me right I am french, what do I know about you guys great cowboys of the west. And hunters if they had some respect for the animals, would not go around carrying heavy weaponery, but a knife and a bow, old school rambo style :D. 1) I don't know where you heard about that free 22, but I never have. 2) .22's are barely more dangerous than BB guns. I've seen small woodland animals completely ignore being hit by them. 3) Carrying a gun in public has always required more extensive licensing than simply owning one. I own a small rifle, but I can't carry it in public because I don't have the license. 4) Licensing CAN help ensure that everyone is responsible when the licensing requires effort to get. Plus, since it isn't for something as absolutely necessary as a car, only people actually capable of being responsible would even bother trying to get it. 5) Guns are actually much more humane than bows. A good shot with a hunting rifle will kill a deer almost instantly. Almost all kill shots with bows take much longer, requiring the animal to suffer unnecessarily.
In response to number 1, I know in that documentary about Columbine the fat guy (I don't remember his name) goes into a bank and comes out with some sort of rifle.
|
Considering that gun control laws need to be enforced with guns, it always seemed self-contradictory to me.
|
On July 31 2012 17:38 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 17:28 Esk23 wrote:On July 31 2012 17:06 Falling wrote:On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote:
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States. I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes. You can make that argument just as anyone can easily argue that if people were encouraged to concealed firearms carry, who are law abiding and reasonably responsible, can take out such criminals. As for drug cartels, they are one of the biggest and most corrupt terrorist groups in the world. They easily cross the border to the US illegally as if there was no border. The border control from Mexico to the US is almost nonexistent, something the US government does nothing about. Perhaps one reason the Cartels have so many of US guns is this, where our US government intentionally gave them guns and tried to blame the 2nd Amendment for Mexican criminals getting so many of our guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal. If you have a reasonable way to get those firearms out of their hands, or firearms in general out of criminal hands in a way that doesn't infringe on US citizens' rights to bear and own arms, then let's hear it. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson Keep in mind that right when considering what type of guns citizens should be allowed or not allowed to have. Do you really think a country of people could fight a tyrannical government with hand guns? Probably not. In a sense, tyranny is not a current issue within the sheriff department, is it? It says "people" in form of "themselves", not "itself", suggesting you're not supposed to fight as a unit, just protect your own hide should you be under pressure from someone abusing his status. Another clue is "tyranny in government". Specifically; it does not say "tyrranical government".I probably shouldn't say this, and I don't necessarily mean anything by it, but I've always wondered (to myself) if subpar reading comprehention was a republican thing.
Are you serious? If you have tyranny in govnerment to the point the people's last resort is firearms, would you not call it a "tyrannical government", are you talking about your own reading comprehension? I think you're trying to be cute with words, it comes across as the same thing.
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:"
"deterring tyrannical government;"
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
|
On August 01 2012 02:17 Equity213 wrote:
Considering that gun control laws need to be enforced with guns, it always seemed self-contradictory to me.
It is, and it's also hypocritical considering the US military has killed over a million innocent civilians with guns, bombs, fighter jets, etc and considering the Iraqi war was a fraud, there were no weapons of mass destruction like they used as an excuse to go to war in the first place. Yet, because of a few shootings by some psychos they want to push for gun control.
|
On August 01 2012 02:17 Equity213 wrote:
Considering that gun control laws need to be enforced with guns, it always seemed self-contradictory to me.
your point is silly, how do you think driving laws are enforced? If you're going with your simplistic minded snide remarks yes police pull people over in cars with other cars. But a red light ticket can come from a camera, you register your vehicle with the dmv no cars, needed there either, even parking tickets. Car standards are enforced at the plant that makes the cars, don't really need cars there to enforce laws maybe to get there. Most laws can be enforced though simple denial of legal production/service. And guess what in the US when you break laws willingly the police come to enforce it and if you appear to be using force to resist the police use force. You seem to not understand the role of the police in society, it's to act under the rules of might makes right. And it's the compete with anyone else who tries a might makes right approach to getting what they want. But the difference is that the police is suppose to service the people's interest not one individual's interest.
Making snide remarks just reduces a conversation doesn't help it.
Also i can't believe people still try to make the point in you can't stop people from breaking the law if they are really determined. With that non-morality driven logic, why enforce speeding laws? Hell why enforce most laws, most people will just find a way to break them, it's such a defeatist attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
