|
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 August 10 2012 20:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:19 Kavallerie wrote:
This is another area which has no simple answer. You have people who are against weapons, and in an ideal America, this would be the perfect choice. However there are already people with guns and even if guns were banned, it would be hard to conduct investigations for seizure of weapons by US policemen if this is even legal. Thus people in the US will almost always have weapons regardless of its banning.
Then you have the other solution where people should carry guns everyday in the backpack, bags, etc. However then there will be more accidents and unexpected shootings due to some people being more spontaneous and less able to control their emotions. It's hard to come to a solution and I doubt there's a simple solution to this ongoing problem. For sake of argument even if guns were banned tomorrow, you can't confiscate folks weapons -- that would violate the ex-post facto law. This is the same reason why you can still own automatic weapons if you owned/purchased them before 1986, and you can still sell those today, no problem. Never mind the fact that any large-scale confiscation of weapons would result in revolution..., just not feasible. It's much more likely they'll go for ammunition, or manufacturing, etc. I've pretty much given up trying to change anti-non Government ownership of weapons folks (they're not anti-gun, since they obviously don't mind folks in fancy uniforms and with shiny badges carrying them around oppressing folks because they're unarmed...), but you know...I'd be fine with banning ALL ownership of weapons if you could guarantee to me that it is impossible for tyranny to ever arise. If you can't do that, then we'll, your only argument is an accessory to bringing tyranny to this land. I wonder how successful Stalin would have been if the Russians never disarmed themselves...ah, Solzhenitsyn. (Or for you, if the Jews were never disarmed in 1936 by the same type of legislation folks are pushing here in the States today)
Sorry, would you mind explaining what 'ex-post facto law' is and why it can't be violated?
By your example about automatic weapons, the counter argument would be that there were a lot of drugs that were fully legal and then later became illegal to use, sell and buy.
I highly doubt that there would be a revolution at all if tyranny arose. The US citizens have had a lot of rights stripped from them lately. The patriot act removed pretty much every right you have. There's major surveillance everywhere in the US, making a resistance network against a corrupt government practically impossible.
You're already fucked when it comes to fighting off tyranny.
Besides considering you're constantly at war, you have the most powerful weapons in the world. I wonder how fast an angry mob with small arms would scatter when faced with a gunship and precision drones.
Fancy folk with shiny badges have a monopoly on violence in many countries with lower crime rates, and less corrupt governments. It works, because they receive training and are doing psych tests whether or not they're fit to uphold the law. They do fail, as do we all, but to a lesser extent than the man shooting up the batman cinema for instance. That man was not fit to uphold the law or carry a gun. Yet he was in his full right to do so.
|
On August 13 2012 12:09 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:55 Wegandi wrote:On August 10 2012 20:19 Kavallerie wrote:
This is another area which has no simple answer. You have people who are against weapons, and in an ideal America, this would be the perfect choice. However there are already people with guns and even if guns were banned, it would be hard to conduct investigations for seizure of weapons by US policemen if this is even legal. Thus people in the US will almost always have weapons regardless of its banning.
Then you have the other solution where people should carry guns everyday in the backpack, bags, etc. However then there will be more accidents and unexpected shootings due to some people being more spontaneous and less able to control their emotions. It's hard to come to a solution and I doubt there's a simple solution to this ongoing problem. For sake of argument even if guns were banned tomorrow, you can't confiscate folks weapons -- that would violate the ex-post facto law. This is the same reason why you can still own automatic weapons if you owned/purchased them before 1986, and you can still sell those today, no problem. Never mind the fact that any large-scale confiscation of weapons would result in revolution..., just not feasible. It's much more likely they'll go for ammunition, or manufacturing, etc. I've pretty much given up trying to change anti-non Government ownership of weapons folks (they're not anti-gun, since they obviously don't mind folks in fancy uniforms and with shiny badges carrying them around oppressing folks because they're unarmed...), but you know...I'd be fine with banning ALL ownership of weapons if you could guarantee to me that it is impossible for tyranny to ever arise. If you can't do that, then we'll, your only argument is an accessory to bringing tyranny to this land. I wonder how successful Stalin would have been if the Russians never disarmed themselves...ah, Solzhenitsyn. (Or for you, if the Jews were never disarmed in 1936 by the same type of legislation folks are pushing here in the States today) Sorry, would you mind explaining what 'ex-post facto law' is and why it can't be violated? By your example about automatic weapons, the counter argument would be that there were a lot of drugs that were fully legal and then later became illegal to use, sell and buy. I highly doubt that there would be a revolution at all if tyranny arose. The US citizens have had a lot of rights stripped from them lately. The patriot act removed pretty much every right you have. There's major surveillance everywhere in the US, making a resistance network against a corrupt government practically impossible. You're already fucked when it comes to fighting off tyranny. Besides considering you're constantly at war, you have the most powerful weapons in the world. I wonder how fast an angry mob with small arms would scatter when faced with a gunship and precision drones. Fancy folk with shiny badges have a monopoly on violence in many countries with lower crime rates, and less corrupt governments. It works, because they receive training and are doing psych tests whether or not they're fit to uphold the law. They do fail, as do we all, but to a lesser extent than the man shooting up the batman cinema for instance. That man was not fit to uphold the law or carry a gun. Yet he was in his full right to do so.
Lets pretend you are the government. How do you identify and stop all of the people who might be revolutionaries without getting out the word that you are doing this and so encouraging others to quickly band together?
How do you differentiate between people who post on a message board opposing the government and those that are actually the people taking actions against the government? Are you going to start raiding everybody who holds a contrary opinion?
The mere fact that you picture a revolution as a bunch of angry people in a mob with guns just displays your thought on the matter. Any successful resistance in modern times against a technologically superior force with the will to use it is based on and around bombing targets and firearms only for security and defense.
|
I guess this would count as an update to the discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499
A man killed his son thinking he was a burglar this morning, I get that he is clearly a retard for shooting on sight like that, but is it worth the risk? The minority will always spoil something for the majority, and I think this is more true with something as dangerous as guns than anything else.
|
On September 29 2012 05:44 Lyter wrote:I guess this would count as an update to the discussion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499A man killed his son thinking he was a burglar this morning, I get that he is clearly a retard for shooting on sight like that, but is it worth the risk? The minority will always spoil something for the majority, and I think this is more true with something as dangerous as guns than anything else.
He's not a retard for shooting the masked man approaching him with something he believed to be a weapon in his hand. He's a retard for not raising his son to not wear a skimask and apparently attempt to burglarize someone's (his next-door neighbor aunt of all people) home. Everyone should know that if you attempt to break into someone's home, you may damned well get your ass shot on the spot. It's the way it is, and the way it should be.
|
On February 20 2012 03:17 Jonoman92 wrote:
Theoretically I think it would be ideal if no one except specialized law enforcement could have guns. Unfortunately with the current proliferation of firearms in the US as well as the mindset of a large portion of the population this is an ideal which will never happen for the foreseeable future (in the US.) Plus, as some have mentioned, even if laws were passed to ban firearms. That would only serve to make the law-abiding citizens unarmed, while those who wanted guns could still get/keep them.
This. Too many guns already in the US for banning them to really be effective. Here in the UK it's correct, guns for specailized law enforcement.
|
On September 29 2012 06:06 EnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:17 Jonoman92 wrote:
Theoretically I think it would be ideal if no one except specialized law enforcement could have guns. Unfortunately with the current proliferation of firearms in the US as well as the mindset of a large portion of the population this is an ideal which will never happen for the foreseeable future (in the US.) Plus, as some have mentioned, even if laws were passed to ban firearms. That would only serve to make the law-abiding citizens unarmed, while those who wanted guns could still get/keep them. This. Too many guns already in the US for banning them to really be effective.
The problem is not even that they are a lot of firearm. Believe it or not, but France has an incredible amount of firearms in circulation. Switzerland even more. Every house has a firearm in Switzerland, people have to have their army weapon at home, so imagine...
The problem in the US is that it is not only legal, but normal to go have your breakfast at your local coffeeshop with your gun in your pocket. The problem is that a 25 years old kid can buy enough weapons to decimate a whole school without being asked questions.
The problem is gun culture. Why do you need a gun? Why do you need to carry a gun in the street?
You know what guns are for? They are for killing people. That's their only function! So people who go out with a gun believe that it is a reasonable outcome for their day that they end up shooting someone. I'm sorry but that's utterly fucked up.
Of course guns should be forbidden or very very heavily regulated, like basically everywhere else in the world. Not so there stop to be guns and therefore less killing. But so that guns stop to be something normal. I'll tell you something: the only firearm I've ever touched was a 1940 german rifle at the countryhouse of a friend. That makes the difference between a country where 3 people out of 100 000 die every year from firearms homicide with a country where the figure is 0,07% per 100K people, like the United Kingdom.
That's a ratio of 1 to 40. You guys have proportionally 40 times more casualities from firearm homicide than the UK.
So no, to stop selling guns won't solve evrything. But it's a damn good place to start. And maybe stop doing completely ridiculous law that allow you to shoot people when you have "reasons to feel threatened" (LOL at "stand your ground law". What kind of fascist believing real world is fucking HALO gave its name to this absurdity?) or when people enter your garden.
|
Can someone explain to me why people need guns, as opposed to other self-defense items (like pepper spray, tasers, those baton-stick things, etc.)? I just don't see why people would want, more or less need a tool of such likely death.
|
On September 29 2012 06:29 TALegion wrote:
Can someone explain to me why people need guns, as opposed to other self-defense items (like pepper spray, tasers, those baton-stick things, etc.)? I just don't see why people would want, more or less need a tool of such likely death.
I can definitely understand in a females case, and one of the main reasons I'm against female police officers (the threshhold for shooting a suspect is much lower-- a man's fists and body are considered deadly weapons to a female police officer), because pepper spray would be useless to someone trying to hurt you.
I don't see a problem for having 1 small firearm in your home for security. If your home is being broken into, I'd bet you anything you'd rather have a pistol than a "taser, or those baton-stick things".
Hunting rifles are fine too of course. But, automatic weapons? That's just inconceivably stupid.
|
On August 13 2012 12:09 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 20:55 Wegandi wrote:On August 10 2012 20:19 Kavallerie wrote:
This is another area which has no simple answer. You have people who are against weapons, and in an ideal America, this would be the perfect choice. However there are already people with guns and even if guns were banned, it would be hard to conduct investigations for seizure of weapons by US policemen if this is even legal. Thus people in the US will almost always have weapons regardless of its banning.
Then you have the other solution where people should carry guns everyday in the backpack, bags, etc. However then there will be more accidents and unexpected shootings due to some people being more spontaneous and less able to control their emotions. It's hard to come to a solution and I doubt there's a simple solution to this ongoing problem. For sake of argument even if guns were banned tomorrow, you can't confiscate folks weapons -- that would violate the ex-post facto law. This is the same reason why you can still own automatic weapons if you owned/purchased them before 1986, and you can still sell those today, no problem. Never mind the fact that any large-scale confiscation of weapons would result in revolution..., just not feasible. It's much more likely they'll go for ammunition, or manufacturing, etc. I've pretty much given up trying to change anti-non Government ownership of weapons folks (they're not anti-gun, since they obviously don't mind folks in fancy uniforms and with shiny badges carrying them around oppressing folks because they're unarmed...), but you know...I'd be fine with banning ALL ownership of weapons if you could guarantee to me that it is impossible for tyranny to ever arise. If you can't do that, then we'll, your only argument is an accessory to bringing tyranny to this land. I wonder how successful Stalin would have been if the Russians never disarmed themselves...ah, Solzhenitsyn. (Or for you, if the Jews were never disarmed in 1936 by the same type of legislation folks are pushing here in the States today) Sorry, would you mind explaining what 'ex-post facto law' is and why it can't be violated? By your example about automatic weapons, the counter argument would be that there were a lot of drugs that were fully legal and then later became illegal to use, sell and buy. I highly doubt that there would be a revolution at all if tyranny arose. The US citizens have had a lot of rights stripped from them lately. The patriot act removed pretty much every right you have. There's major surveillance everywhere in the US, making a resistance network against a corrupt government practically impossible. You're already fucked when it comes to fighting off tyranny. Besides considering you're constantly at war, you have the most powerful weapons in the world. I wonder how fast an angry mob with small arms would scatter when faced with a gunship and precision drones. Fancy folk with shiny badges have a monopoly on violence in many countries with lower crime rates, and less corrupt governments. It works, because they receive training and are doing psych tests whether or not they're fit to uphold the law. They do fail, as do we all, but to a lesser extent than the man shooting up the batman cinema for instance. That man was not fit to uphold the law or carry a gun. Yet he was in his full right to do so.
You clearly have not lived in the United States if you think that a revolution of some sort wouldn't occur if the gov all of a sudden said, "Hey, we're going to take all your guns ok?"
|
On September 29 2012 06:29 TALegion wrote:
Can someone explain to me why people need guns, as opposed to other self-defense items (like pepper spray, tasers, those baton-stick things, etc.)? I just don't see why people would want, more or less need a tool of such likely death.
Range, letting you stay out of range of knives or clubs while still being effective. More effective across larger target areas, for example, going center mass with pepper spray drastically reduces the effectiveness. A stungun is a close quarters weapon, a tazer is a slow reload. Doesn't rely on physical strength as much as a melee weapon.
Let's face it, any kind of hand to hand weapon is completely useless if your assailant is bigger than you, assuming minimal or no training in both parties.
A gun is an equalizer. It gives you better odds of surviving a realistic self defense scenario, assuming you know how to use it. I'm probably better trained than the average citizen in any and all forms of combat, and I'd still want a gun if three guys smashed in my door. When I lived in Colorado, a soldier in my apartment complex got sent to the hospital by three burglars with a baseball bat.
Yes, lethal force is lethal force. That's the point. If you're in a situation where life is being deliberately and criminally endangered, being able to make it the criminal who dies seems like a good thing to me.
I firmly believe there's sane levels of gun control that should be implemented, but I also feel more comfortable having a gun. Granted, I also believe that anyone who owns a gun has an inherent responsibility to be capable with it, especially if they carry.
It's a complex issue. Yes, there should be some gun control, but not to the point of complete bans. Common sense laws, like illegal for people convicted of certain crimes, permit required for concealed carry, with proficiency certifications required... some of these laws already exist, even in places like Texas. This is, technically, gun control, but I bet even the average NRA member wouldn't want a sex offender to get a handgun and a carry permit. Ideally, we'd have a federal minimum and maximum to gun laws, with the specific level to be adopted determined by the state.
And if anyone feels the need to comment on it being intended to kill people? Well, so were swords, fencing is still in the Olympics. So please, leave sport shooting out of it, unless you're going to attack martial arts as well.
|
On September 29 2012 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 06:06 EnE wrote:On February 20 2012 03:17 Jonoman92 wrote:
Theoretically I think it would be ideal if no one except specialized law enforcement could have guns. Unfortunately with the current proliferation of firearms in the US as well as the mindset of a large portion of the population this is an ideal which will never happen for the foreseeable future (in the US.) Plus, as some have mentioned, even if laws were passed to ban firearms. That would only serve to make the law-abiding citizens unarmed, while those who wanted guns could still get/keep them. The problem is gun culture. Why do you need a gun? Why do you need to carry a gun in the street?
The problem is alcohol culture. Why do you need alcohol? Why do you need to drink alcohol?
Booze kills more people each year than guns. And its not just from cirrhosis either. Drunk driving, and violent or clumsy drunks do their fair share. Not to mention that many gun-related deaths would not have happened if one or more people involved weren't hammered.
|
bumping this thread so that people will know there is a place they can debate about gun control without derailing a thread, disrespecting the dead, or getting banned (probably)
|
It's the same argument, unfortunately. If guns didn't exist, this tragedy would either not have happened or been less deadly (assuming a man with a knife could be stopped sooner). However, if guns were illegal to own, it still would have been possible because you can still get something that exists even if illegal. So it goes.
|
On December 15 2012 03:48 Crisium wrote:
It's the same argument, unfortunately. If guns didn't exist, this tragedy would either not have happened or been less deadly (assuming a man with a knife could be stopped sooner). However, if guns were illegal to own, it still would have been possible because you can still get something that exists even if illegal. So it goes.
That's pretty much the crux of it. It would probably take 100 years or more before guns could be eradicated in america. Outright banning firearms would lead to a long time of law abiding citizens being defenseless versus criminals armed with them. It sucks but thats the reality of the situation. The real question is how to deal with that fact.
|
Never understand the logic of some americans on here saying "it would of still happend even if there was gun laws"
Yeah but the point is it would of been much harder to carry out shootings like this. I can understand when you say its nice to have guns for self defence etc Yes i can kind of agree with an hand gun... maybe but automatic rifles? who the hell needs automatic rifles for self defence, those things are used for one thing, shootings like this.
Would he have been able to kill as many people with just an hand gun? probaly not, same goes for the batman shootings. Yet there is still going to be people replying to this and trying to defend why you're able to buy these kind of weapons. Nothing is going to change.
|
On December 15 2012 03:53 Reaps wrote:
Never understand the logic of some americans on here saying "it would of still happend even if there was gun laws"
Yeah but the point is it would of been much harder to carry out shootings like this. I can understand when you say its nice to have guns for self defence etc Yes i can kind of agree with an hand gun... maybe but automatic rifles? who the hell needs automatic rifles for self defence, those things are used for one thing, shootings like this.
Would he have been able to kill as many people with just an hand gun? probaly not, same goes for the batman shootings. Yet there is still going to be people replying to this and trying to defend why you're able to buy these kind of weapons. Nothing is going to change.
i believe i read in the connecticut shooting thread that the shooting was done with two handguns.. has there been a newer update that said it was an automatic rifle?
|
Neither shootings involved automatic weapons. And "the fact" that it would be much harder to carry out a shooting if they were illegal is completely up for debate. There are 300 million+ guns in america and banning them would probably cause half of those guns to "disappear" because the government doesn't have a listing of all guns and who owns them. Gun ownership isn't recorded in most states so the majority of guns are not exactly traceable. You prohibit gun ownership and plenty of people would just hide their guns and the government would be non the wiser.
|
On December 15 2012 03:57 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:53 Reaps wrote:
Never understand the logic of some americans on here saying "it would of still happend even if there was gun laws"
Yeah but the point is it would of been much harder to carry out shootings like this. I can understand when you say its nice to have guns for self defence etc Yes i can kind of agree with an hand gun... maybe but automatic rifles? who the hell needs automatic rifles for self defence, those things are used for one thing, shootings like this.
Would he have been able to kill as many people with just an hand gun? probaly not, same goes for the batman shootings. Yet there is still going to be people replying to this and trying to defend why you're able to buy these kind of weapons. Nothing is going to change.
i believe i read in the connecticut shooting thread that the shooting was done with two handguns.. has there been a newer update that said it was an automatic rifle?
I heard on news it was an automatic rifle, if not then my bad.
|
On December 15 2012 03:58 heliusx wrote:
Neither shootings involved automatic weapons.
Semi automatic then, both much more powerful than an handgun
|
So you think that only pump action, bolt action, lever action, etc should be legal to own?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
