|
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. |
|
|
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent.
|
On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent.
Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures?
|
On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures?
Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve?
|
Medieval ages are over, people should not be allowed to carry deadly weapons, except if they have a very good reason, for example being police.
|
On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve?
Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow?
|
On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow?
That is why you register the weapon when you buy it. I do not see how it could affect accidental gunshot victims? I wish you could elaborate? Like not cleaning it? I own a few handguns, rifles, and shotguns, all of my weapons are cleaned and put into a safe, Accidental gunshots happen because people are irresponsible with their weapons.. Lets say I keep my handgun under my pillow and accidentally kill my wife in my sleep, that is MY fault, MY personal responsibility, not anyone elses. People need to learn that personal responsibility is key, and if people keep wanting free paychecks, and giving the government responsibility, then go live in a true Communist country, oh wait thats impossible, I dont think there are any by the book (Communist Manifesto) countries, where you get paid to sit on your ass, because it doesnt work. All of the gun related issues are a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you can load up and go kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, then you can sit in for a lethal injection. I'm sick of a lot of the gray stuff when it is so obvious that a person walked in and murdered people, and are considered insane, they know the law, and that is (in some states) that you will be killed or serve life imprisonment.
Also to the dudes who said that it doesn't apply to nowadays, if you have no way to protect yourself or your family, then what freedoms do you have? You cant defend yourself, it would be taking a knife to a gunfight, and Im sorry, guns do win. Im a constitutionalist, and these are my views, if you can't accept personal responsibility for your actions, then simply don't do said actions, nobody cares about you or who you are, so do what you think is right.
|
On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow?
So the idea is to create a whole beaucracy in the hopes that being checked everyonce in awhile will result in fewer accidental deaths? There would need to be a lot of supporting evidence that would have a huge impact on preventing simple human error. Also, what is to stop me from simply reverting an "illegally modified weapon" to a legal once it comes time for being checked out, then simply going back to using illegal parts? See the problem is the solutions people come up with aren't very well thought out, hard to implement, or completely useless. 10 round mag limits arent going to prevent massacres just as a "bullet button" wont stand in the way of me hot swapping mags. I am referring to Californias laws on 10 round magaizine limits for semi-auto rifles and the bullet button law which requires a tool to be used to swap magazines. If one was to proceed with a mass shotting like Colorado just experienced it would be very very easy to buy a bullet button bypass magnet, fashion an improvised one themselves, or even remove it completely. 10 round mags or 30 is irrelevent when it only takes a blink of an eye to swap magazines in a weapon. Those laws serve absolutely no purpose other than make it slightly less convenient to commit a crime.
|
On August 02 2012 10:52 bayside wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow? That is why you register the weapon when you buy it. I do not see how it could affect accidental gunshot victims? I wish you could elaborate? Like not cleaning it? I own a few handguns, rifles, and shotguns, all of my weapons are cleaned and put into a safe, Accidental gunshots happen because people are irresponsible with their weapons.. Lets say I keep my handgun under my pillow and accidentally kill my wife in my sleep, that is MY fault, MY personal responsibility, not anyone elses. People need to learn that personal responsibility is key, and if people keep wanting free paychecks, and giving the government responsibility, then go live in a true Communist country, oh wait thats impossible, I dont think there are any by the book (Communist Manifesto) countries, where you get paid to sit on your ass, because it doesnt work. All of the gun related issues are a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If you can load up and go kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, then you can sit in for a lethal injection. I'm sick of a lot of the gray stuff when it is so obvious that a person walked in and murdered people, and are considered insane, they know the law, and that is (in some states) that you will be killed or serve life imprisonment. Also to the dudes who said that it doesn't apply to nowadays, if you have no way to protect yourself or your family, then what freedoms do you have? You cant defend yourself, it would be taking a knife to a gunfight, and Im sorry, guns do win. Im a constitutionalist, and these are my views, if you can't accept personal responsibility for your actions, then simply don't do said actions, nobody cares about you or who you are, so do what you think is right.
Umm, so you'd rather not be inspected and accidentaly shoot your wife instead of getting an inspection every once in a while? Sure, if you're a responsible gun owner you'll probably never have that happen to you, but then again, whats the harm in getting checked then? Those inspections wouldnt really be because of the responsible gun owners but because of the unresponsible ones, I thought that was clear? Thing is, you cant expect people to be responsible, and with tools as dangerous as guns there is enough incentive to inspect the state the guns are in and how their owner handles them. For example (since I dont have a gun and live in Europe) we also have to get our cars inspected every once in a while (intervals vary in different EU countries) in order to make sure they stay in road safe conditions. And while I'm talking about cars, I also think road safety would benefit from regular driving skill tests.
|
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.
And prior to the recent movie theater shooting, the last mass shooting was November 5th, 2009. And that was the one at Fort Hood.
The people who do things like this, will find a way.
Interesting
|
On August 02 2012 10:55 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow? So the idea is to create a whole beaucracy in the hopes that being checked everyonce in awhile will result in fewer accidental deaths? There would need to be a lot of supporting evidence that would have a huge impact on preventing simple human error. Also, what is to stop me from simply reverting an "illegally modified weapon" to a legal once it comes time for being checked out, then simply going back to using illegal parts? See the problem is the solutions people come up with aren't very well thought out, hard to implement, or completely useless. 10 round mag limits arent going to prevent massacres just as a "bullet button" wont stand in the way of me hot swapping mags. I am referring to Californias laws on 10 round magaizine limits for semi-auto rifles and the bullet button law which requires a tool to be used to swap magazines. If one was to proceed with a mass shotting like Colorado just experienced it would be very very easy to buy a bullet button bypass magnet, fashion an improvised one themselves, or even remove it completely. 10 round mags or 30 is irrelevent when it only takes a blink of an eye to swap magazines in a weapon. Those laws serve absolutely no purpose other than make it slightly less convenient to commit a crime.
True enough, you can revert your modifications before an inspection, but that doesnt mean that everyone does that. One thing that one should never forget is that people are stupid. Of course if the predicted reduction of accidental (or not) gunshot victims isnt worth the resources that are used to go through with these inspections, it would be nonsense. But to determine that would be a task for people with more education and sources for statistics than me, I know that. My thought behind those inspections is that accidental gunshot numbers arent really all that small and could probably be reduced by promoting a good education of gun owners and regular inspections of their guns (if only to make sure that theres maintenance every once in a while). Forgive me for quoting wikipedia but:
There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
Seems like theres a lot of room for improvement there. At least to me it does.
|
On August 02 2012 11:03 AllSalesFinal 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. And prior to the recent movie theater shooting, the last mass shooting was November 5th, 2009. And that was the one at Fort Hood. The people who do things like this, will find a way.Interesting
Exactly, you don't need a gun to go on a killing spree:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
|
On August 02 2012 11:10 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:55 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow? So the idea is to create a whole beaucracy in the hopes that being checked everyonce in awhile will result in fewer accidental deaths? There would need to be a lot of supporting evidence that would have a huge impact on preventing simple human error. Also, what is to stop me from simply reverting an "illegally modified weapon" to a legal once it comes time for being checked out, then simply going back to using illegal parts? See the problem is the solutions people come up with aren't very well thought out, hard to implement, or completely useless. 10 round mag limits arent going to prevent massacres just as a "bullet button" wont stand in the way of me hot swapping mags. I am referring to Californias laws on 10 round magaizine limits for semi-auto rifles and the bullet button law which requires a tool to be used to swap magazines. If one was to proceed with a mass shotting like Colorado just experienced it would be very very easy to buy a bullet button bypass magnet, fashion an improvised one themselves, or even remove it completely. 10 round mags or 30 is irrelevent when it only takes a blink of an eye to swap magazines in a weapon. Those laws serve absolutely no purpose other than make it slightly less convenient to commit a crime. True enough, you can revert your modifications before an inspection, but that doesnt mean that everyone does that. One thing that one should never forget is that people are stupid. Of course if the predicted reduction of accidental (or not) gunshot victims isnt worth the resources that are used to go through with these inspections, it would be nonsense. But to determine that would be a task for people with more education and sources for statistics than me, I know that. My thought behind those inspections is that accidental gunshot numbers arent really all that small and could probably be reduced by promoting a good education of gun owners and regular inspections of their guns (if only to make sure that theres maintenance every once in a while). Forgive me for quoting wikipedia but: Show nested quote +There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Seems like theres a lot of room for improvement there. At least to me it does.
A very large percentage of those accidental injuries happen during cleaning. A law or maintenance check that actually required people to take care of their guns would probably make it worse, not better. People dumb enough to not take good care of their guns are also dumb enough to not pay attention to where the muzzle is pointing while they clean it. Forcing idiots to clean their guns will probably get more of them shot than it will save.
|
On August 02 2012 09:38 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:09 Esk23 wrote:On August 02 2012 09:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 02 2012 06:09 ZasZ. wrote:On August 02 2012 01:22 Atheist wrote:On August 01 2012 22:09 zatic wrote:On August 01 2012 19:48 stevarius wrote:On August 01 2012 19:45 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On August 01 2012 19:36 hzflank wrote:
I disagree. I think that if a person wants to commit mass murder then they will find a way to do so. Making explosives is harder than buying guns, but if you are planning to commit mass murder then you will be willing to put in the effort to make explosives.
I have no background in chemistry yet I could still manufacture a small bomb if I wanted to.
In the UK, we have less gun crime because we have less guns. But we have a lot of knife crime instead. People who want to kill will use what weapons are available to them. Such a poorly thought out and ridiculous opinion. If I want to make explosive it takes time, research and planning and a lot of skill to actually use effectively. Buying a gun in the US (or better yet using the one I already own or my parents) does not take those things. Murdering 10s of people in a school shooting style rampage with a knife is logistically impossible. It's also far easier mentally to shoot someone that it is to stab them to death and a person is far more likely to survive a knife attack (or fight off their attacker) than they are if someone uses a gun. All in all it's just far more difficult logistically, mentally and physically to do something like Columbine, Virginia Tech or the Batman Cinema shooting without ready and easy access the firearms. The same could also be said of countless other heat or the moment killings where in the UK a dispute would lead to a fistfight in the US they lead to someone getting shot because people have guns right there and then. Embarrassing that this is coming from a UK resident. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If someone is determined to do something and they have the willpower, they will achieve it regardless of what they have access to that would potentially make it easier. At most, you'd be buying a little bit of time. Well there is a prominent example of an attempted school shooting in Germany, which ended with only a few people injured - because the shooter didn't have any (effective) guns. He did not apply for a license and wait until he could buy real steel, but did his shooting with freely purchasable antique guns and home made bombs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emsdetten_school_shootingObviously he showed enough intent and determination to go through with this. A fact is that with easy access to guns Emsdetten would have to mourn over lots of dead students instead of treat some injured. A fact is that in this case stricter gun laws saved lives, and did not buy some time. I completely agree. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that people kill people. The statistics alone with the use of guns is hard to deny. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. There's no doubt that if we took millions of guns out of circulation it would have some positive effect on firearm-related deaths, but to say that "people kill people" is a lie is asinine at best. Just because deadly weapons are more easily accessible to some people (in the U.S.) doesn't make them any less responsible when they use them for deadly force. "People kill people" may not be the whole story (how can it be, it's three words), but it is hardly a lie. Obviously the best method for preventing firearm deaths would be to remove the willingness to kill from all human beings, and then we wouldn't need guns for self-defense. Getting rid of the guns, however, would not eliminate violent crime to the same degree. As always, education and behavioral adjustments will do more than any law can, and boy do we need it. Yet another poster living in a deluded fantasy world. That stats speak for themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenceOh look, Britain bans people from having guns and we have way less firearm related homicides than the US. And surprise, surprise we also have far fewer overall homicides despite having comparable non firearm related homicide rates. Want to guess why? Yes that's right, it's because killing someone without using a gun is actually kind of hard. Yet you have a higher crime rate in your country than US does, you really have no argument for why good people can't use guns for self defense except the fact that a few criminals can get them and commit crime, which they do regardless if they have a gun or not. With your method of thinking, I suppose we should ban cars too since 3 times as many people die in car accidents than they do to firearms. Actually, a higher crime-rate with lower deaths kinda proves his point. Better to get mugged an live, as getting mugged and getting shot trying to kill the mugger.
It's a fucking stupid concept that it's a good idea to let yourself be mugged or be ok with being mugged as long as both of you live. You aren't even allowed to defend yourself. I think it's better to shoot a mugger and have the right to defend yourself than risk being mugged or even mugged AND killed if say the criminal has a knife on him. Live however you like.
|
On August 03 2012 03:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:10 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:55 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow? So the idea is to create a whole beaucracy in the hopes that being checked everyonce in awhile will result in fewer accidental deaths? There would need to be a lot of supporting evidence that would have a huge impact on preventing simple human error. Also, what is to stop me from simply reverting an "illegally modified weapon" to a legal once it comes time for being checked out, then simply going back to using illegal parts? See the problem is the solutions people come up with aren't very well thought out, hard to implement, or completely useless. 10 round mag limits arent going to prevent massacres just as a "bullet button" wont stand in the way of me hot swapping mags. I am referring to Californias laws on 10 round magaizine limits for semi-auto rifles and the bullet button law which requires a tool to be used to swap magazines. If one was to proceed with a mass shotting like Colorado just experienced it would be very very easy to buy a bullet button bypass magnet, fashion an improvised one themselves, or even remove it completely. 10 round mags or 30 is irrelevent when it only takes a blink of an eye to swap magazines in a weapon. Those laws serve absolutely no purpose other than make it slightly less convenient to commit a crime. True enough, you can revert your modifications before an inspection, but that doesnt mean that everyone does that. One thing that one should never forget is that people are stupid. Of course if the predicted reduction of accidental (or not) gunshot victims isnt worth the resources that are used to go through with these inspections, it would be nonsense. But to determine that would be a task for people with more education and sources for statistics than me, I know that. My thought behind those inspections is that accidental gunshot numbers arent really all that small and could probably be reduced by promoting a good education of gun owners and regular inspections of their guns (if only to make sure that theres maintenance every once in a while). Forgive me for quoting wikipedia but: There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Seems like theres a lot of room for improvement there. At least to me it does. A very large percentage of those accidental injuries happen during cleaning. A law or maintenance check that actually required people to take care of their guns would probably make it worse, not better. People dumb enough to not take good care of their guns are also dumb enough to not pay attention to where the muzzle is pointing while they clean it. Forcing idiots to clean their guns will probably get more of them shot than it will save.
Thats why I also suggested educating gun owners on good maintenance procedures. I'm pretty sure most of those accidents happen to people who didnt have military grade training with their weapons. I'd like to think that the US military actually promotes a good healthy attitude towards weapon handling and maintenance.
|
On August 03 2012 03:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 11:10 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:55 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:39 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:29 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:On August 02 2012 10:16 ChinaRestaurant wrote:On August 02 2012 10:11 ohnoitschrishansen wrote:
I think many who discuss gun violence tend to be very one dimensional. Pointing out references to gun voilence statistics and giving their opinion without considering all the variables associated with crime/violence and how society will handle different levels of gun control. One side is the extreme "ban all firearms" the other is "completely unregulated gun ownership". There exists arguments for both sides which are very credible but there really is a problem of people debating using ignorant generalities and throwing up a link to a biased one sided bar graph. I am just tired of laws telling me what I can and cannot do. I own 3 guns and have never committed a crime, if I want to own a semi automatic rifle that should be my decision and not someone elses. Pass laws to punish criminals not bind the innocent. Would you be okay with being checked every once in a while how good you can handle your guns and their maintenance procedures? Let me answer with a question. What purpose would that serve? Cutting down on the many accidental gunshot victims in US households? Making sure you dont make illegal modifications on your weapons? Stuff like that, yknow? So the idea is to create a whole beaucracy in the hopes that being checked everyonce in awhile will result in fewer accidental deaths? There would need to be a lot of supporting evidence that would have a huge impact on preventing simple human error. Also, what is to stop me from simply reverting an "illegally modified weapon" to a legal once it comes time for being checked out, then simply going back to using illegal parts? See the problem is the solutions people come up with aren't very well thought out, hard to implement, or completely useless. 10 round mag limits arent going to prevent massacres just as a "bullet button" wont stand in the way of me hot swapping mags. I am referring to Californias laws on 10 round magaizine limits for semi-auto rifles and the bullet button law which requires a tool to be used to swap magazines. If one was to proceed with a mass shotting like Colorado just experienced it would be very very easy to buy a bullet button bypass magnet, fashion an improvised one themselves, or even remove it completely. 10 round mags or 30 is irrelevent when it only takes a blink of an eye to swap magazines in a weapon. Those laws serve absolutely no purpose other than make it slightly less convenient to commit a crime. True enough, you can revert your modifications before an inspection, but that doesnt mean that everyone does that. One thing that one should never forget is that people are stupid. Of course if the predicted reduction of accidental (or not) gunshot victims isnt worth the resources that are used to go through with these inspections, it would be nonsense. But to determine that would be a task for people with more education and sources for statistics than me, I know that. My thought behind those inspections is that accidental gunshot numbers arent really all that small and could probably be reduced by promoting a good education of gun owners and regular inspections of their guns (if only to make sure that theres maintenance every once in a while). Forgive me for quoting wikipedia but: There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. Seems like theres a lot of room for improvement there. At least to me it does. A very large percentage of those accidental injuries happen during cleaning. A law or maintenance check that actually required people to take care of their guns would probably make it worse, not better. People dumb enough to not take good care of their guns are also dumb enough to not pay attention to where the muzzle is pointing while they clean it. Forcing idiots to clean their guns will probably get more of them shot than it will save.
Is this really an argument in favor of gun ownership without regulation? That many of the people currently in possession of guns are so stupid they can't even be trusted to handle their gun without shooting themselves, and that regulation forcing them to handle their guns would just result in them shooting themselves? This thread has been trumpeting the virtues of responsible gun ownership. If what you're saying about the average gun owner is true, it immediately calls into question the "responsibility" of those owners, and owners at large.
|
I honestly think that we don't need guns for everybody. The power should still be held by authorities just because they have the right to have them (here in canada) and to be completely honest with out guns how can we shoot?
|
I think we should all keep repeating things famous people who are invested in politics have told us. We could read a broad swathe of studies and find out that all the evidence points very heavily in one way, but hey! I LIKE MY OPINION AND NO ONE IS GOING TO REASON IT AWAY FROM ME!
The sad thing is that posting in this thread is the closest most people will get to thinking.
|
|
|
M16s and M4s are the new muskets. Do you really think the founding fathers didn't think technology would improve?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
