|
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 December 15 2012 07:21 Infinite976 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:17 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:09 Infinite976 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:05 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 Infinite976 wrote:You guys and your lists of countries... how many stabbings does Japan have per capita over the US? Banning things just makes people search all the more for an effective alternative, see: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121021a1.html Well the difference is you cant mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacrewhat about 17 people leaving 7 dead, in 2 minutes Benjamin? I'd argue you could mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife.. Well everything is possible but highly unlikely. But I could kill 200 people in 15min with an automatic rifle in a state of rage. My point is there will always be murders and mentally unstable individuals in our world. The challenge for our society should be to limit there killing potential. And removing guns would defiantly help with that. If US someday make nuclear weapons legal I guarantee you there will be nuclear bombs going off 24/7. Same with guns. Did you see the article about Kennesaw, GA? Guns aren't just legal there, they're mandatory. Do you know how many murders they've had since 1982 when they made gun ownership mandatory?
Hell why not take it even further. Get every human being a tank and a 30mm Gatling cannon and we should always wear full body armor it would properly stop all crime. Just because some people is insane in some state in the US and this insane initiative somehow works. We shouldn't use there horrible example. But I guess the gun manufactures is happy. Im actually wondering who wrote that law the gun manufactures or the electors
|
On December 15 2012 07:25 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:22 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore
Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Wow.. another bunch of useless stats that mean nothing to the topic, It seem's like any kind of logic just fly's over your head. Comparing smoking to mass shootings, its almost as bad as your natural disease post. Where do these guys come from lol :/ His point is that the number of deaths is relevant to the argument. If we are going by deaths, then why do you not feel as strongly about obesity, or smoking, or vehicle deaths than you do about guns? Because the nature of guns has "shock value" to it. When someone is killed by a gun it makes the news. When half a million people are killed annually by tobacco, it's business as usual. That's how that post is relevant. The shock value will alter your perception of reality.
Not trying to offend you, but are you stupid? Guns kill INNOCENT people. Smoking can kill innocent by second-hand yes, but that is very small numbers and you have the chance to walk away from it in many instances. How do you walk away from a bullet to your head. Why should obesity be banned? Because some guy loves McDonalds and doesn't care about his weight? I couldn't give a damn about him. His life, his health, his choice.
What I care about is lunatics running around with guns that they can legally obtain.
|
On December 15 2012 07:26 Jamial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html To go off-topic: Smoking should be banned simply for the fact that it makes OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU sick. By smoking you're hurting other people. And smoking is not a societal necessity as being able to drive cars, or fly planes, or whatever else. If I had any say, it would be banned already. 
Seems to be your culture, to ban everything you don't like. You don't like it, others shouldn't have access to it because they have to feel the same as you.
The United States has somewhat more "freedom" in this respect. Sure there are a lot of things wrong with this place, but there are still some people here who respect liberty.
|
On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder.
This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive.
Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was?
Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population.
|
On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though.
less deaths by gun you mean...
here's an interesting one - http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-households-1418143.html?cat=17
mandatory gun ownership in this town = 1 gun death in 3 decades
|
Comparing gun incidents per capita is unfair because we have an enormous amount of diversity in our population, which unfortunately leads to a lot of hate, often still in the same race.
Some people mentioned that if one of teachers in Conn was carrying a concealed weapon, they could have saved a lot of lives today.
Personally though I dont see the point in guns any more. Its supposed to be for in case we need to uprise against the government or something, but honestly those wars are fought with words and ideas and less guns now.
|
On December 15 2012 07:23 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:42 ArmOfDeath wrote:
I swear it's like talking to children. It doesn't matter if you get rid of guns or not. If there were no guns in the world then criminals would use other means: rocks, sticks, fists, it doesn't matter. They are criminals and they break the law, it's what they do. Unless you're going to police the world and make it so that no one ever does anything wrong, then it's going to be impossible to ever stop these kinds of things. Have any of you watched Minority Report lately? The road to hell is paved with best intentions. If the guy that shot up the school didn't have guns, he would've used/done something else. It's just that simple. It doesn't matter if the US has more school related shootings than the rest of the world, it doesn't matter if the US has the highest amount of gun related violence than the rest of the world. It doesn't matter if the US is the most evil place in the world filled will all the most evil people in the world. Regulation of anything won't stop BAD PEOPLE from doing BAD THINGS. It is stupid to even talk about it. Every time something bad happens to someone, it's a crying shame, and it deeply saddens me, but do I sit in a corner crying and trying to ban everything that could be potentially dangerous? Why are household chemicals not banned? When combined they can make deadly gasses. How about banning cars because people can get drunk and run someone over? How about banning knives because they can hurt people if in the hands of someone mentally unstable or who wants to hurt other people...the list goes on and on. Do you not see how futile it is? I'm not saying it's the best solution, but when someone is going to do a harmful act, the only MAJOR deterrence to them not doing it is the possibility of them dying. Most criminals don't want to die, but there are some, that's why you have a "suicide by cop" statistic. So how do you stop people determined with hurting others who want to die themselves? Because whether you regulate harder or more, or try anything, where there's a will there's a way. Do you want to take away everyone's freedoms in the vain hope that maybe no one will ever get hurt again? It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Those things have other uses than harming other things. Guns were designed to kill with. While you can do recreational shooting that is not what these things were developed for. You are stawmanning pretty hard.
We have guns here for the purpose of self-defense. Killing in self-defense is not illegal. Law-abiding citizens don't buy guns with the purpose of MURDERING others. Understand the difference between "killing" and "murdering". I think you are having trouble with that concept.
|
On December 15 2012 07:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-listwhile there is a correlation there, it's rather weak.
I don't see anything weak about it. These are all the countries mentioned in the thread that have more stricter forms of gun regulation.
Sweden - 0.41 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence
Gun ownership - 45.7/100
Canada - 0.51 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence
Gun ownership - 30.8/100
Serbia - 0.46 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence
Gun ownership - 37.8/100
United States - 2.97 - Homicide Rate related to gun violence
Gun ownership - 88.8/100
Keep in mind we're comparing countries with gun regulation versus well, the US.
There's nothing weak about the correlations.
We're debating facts.
|
People should not be allowed to carry guns.
Say, I get crazy and want to shoot people. I would not even fucking know where to start looking for a gun.
|
On December 15 2012 07:25 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:18 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:20 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On December 15 2012 06:10 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 06:08 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 06:01 revel8 wrote:
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day. They are controlled. Quite a bit actually. Evidently not enough. It doesn't matter how controlled guns are.. if some sick fuck wants to walk into a school and shoot/kill people they will find a way to do it. End of story, when anything is banned/controlled heavily there will ALWAYS be a black market to get said banned thing. Banning guns will not stop these kinds of things, the only real way to stop shit like this from happening is to notice the signs of a family member/friend. It takes some form of mental illness to pull of something that horrible. To stop it, people need to pick up on when others around them seem off or start acting off or showing signs of psychotic behaviour and step in then before hand. People who want to use a gun to kill people will always find a way to get a gun. Heavily gun control will only stop the people who want a fire arm to defend themselves. But..that's why countries with heavily regulated federal level gun control are much more dangerous right? I find the US is beyond help. Their marketplace is already too over-saturated with guns. But we see the failures in their current system way too often in the news. this. sorry to bring it to you but your country is doomed already and there is NOTHING you can do about it except just leave. you made mistakes in the past and you are suffering the consequences. the question "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?" doesnt make any sense at all. its the same question as "should a nation be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" of course not. there could always be someone mad enough who doesnt value his own life or the ones of others to press the button or pull the trigger. so why do you think the whole world fears an iranian a-bomb? because people fear they would use it despite the consequences that would have for themselves. so ask yourself this question: do you want a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of people who dont care at all about their own life or the life of others? no you dont. there are and will always be people who dont fear retaliation so what do you do to minimize the risks of weapons of mass destruction to be used? u put heavy regulations on it and let as few countries as possible have it to achieve a balance of power. its the same thing with guns just on a much smaller scale. how do you minimize the risk of someone shooting another person with a gun? you hand out as few guns as possible and make them really hard to obtain isnt that just pure logic? ofc now u will argue that insane people will not care about laws and get the gun anyways. im not saying things like the tradegy would cease to exist because of strict gunlaws but ask yourself when was the last time you heard about a tragedy like this and the shooter was killed by a law abiding citizen who just happened to be around with his gun? dont you think minimizing the number of guns and making them illegal would prevent more deaths than people having their own guns to defend themselves? sadly in case of the u.s....well this country is so oversaturated with guns already that i dont think any strict gun laws would do anything so you are fucked anyways. my point is the question being asked here is wrong. it should not be "should a person be allowed to carry his own gun?"(no there is no sane reason to) it should be "why is it necessary to carry your own gun in a society with so many guns" you shouldnt be proud of your amendment/freedom to carry your own gun you should be ashamed of your country that u obviously dont trust enough that you have to carry your own gun to defend yourself fromehatever evils may be out there. I actually did read through that wall. I think you misunderstood my sarcasm. Also I'm Canadian.  And I'm glad I live in a country where there is much stricter gun laws. Get this..we also have a lower rate of crime and lower gun related homicides. Now isn't that an idea.
i was actually trying to "prove" your point and i got your sarcasm and i was ofc not speaking of canada...
|
On December 15 2012 07:28 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:25 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:22 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:
[quote]
Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html Wow.. another bunch of useless stats that mean nothing to the topic, It seem's like any kind of logic just fly's over your head. Comparing smoking to mass shootings, its almost as bad as your natural disease post. Where do these guys come from lol :/ His point is that the number of deaths is relevant to the argument. If we are going by deaths, then why do you not feel as strongly about obesity, or smoking, or vehicle deaths than you do about guns? Because the nature of guns has "shock value" to it. When someone is killed by a gun it makes the news. When half a million people are killed annually by tobacco, it's business as usual. That's how that post is relevant. The shock value will alter your perception of reality. Not trying to offend you, but are you stupid? Guns kill INNOCENT people. Smoking can kill innocent by second-hand yes, but that is very small numbers and you have the chance to walk away from it in many instances. How do you walk away from a bullet to your head. Why should obesity be banned? Because some guy loves McDonalds and doesn't care about his weight? I couldn't give a damn about him. His life, his health, his choice. What I care about is lunatics running around with guns that they can legally obtain.
Out of all the responses I threw you, you choose to respond to this post, in this way? I knew facts would be hard for you to deal with. The facts are that gun control does not work, period. Google it yourself. You can continue to argue your point here to me, but reality is not on your side. It may work for a small place like Denmark, I will concede that. But you do not have almost 50% of households having a firearm, 300 million firearms in the whole country, almost 1 per person. It is different here and you cannot compare the two.
I will repeat this to you one last time. Gun control laws do not work like you think it does. Please, for the love of God, use google, google many reputable sources, studies of all kinds, and you will find this to be true. FACTS!
|
On December 15 2012 07:27 Benjamin99 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:21 Infinite976 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:17 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:09 Infinite976 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:05 Benjamin99 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 Infinite976 wrote:You guys and your lists of countries... how many stabbings does Japan have per capita over the US? Banning things just makes people search all the more for an effective alternative, see: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121021a1.html Well the difference is you cant mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacrewhat about 17 people leaving 7 dead, in 2 minutes Benjamin? I'd argue you could mass kill 25 people in 30min with a knife.. Well everything is possible but highly unlikely. But I could kill 200 people in 15min with an automatic rifle in a state of rage. My point is there will always be murders and mentally unstable individuals in our world. The challenge for our society should be to limit there killing potential. And removing guns would defiantly help with that. If US someday make nuclear weapons legal I guarantee you there will be nuclear bombs going off 24/7. Same with guns. Did you see the article about Kennesaw, GA? Guns aren't just legal there, they're mandatory. Do you know how many murders they've had since 1982 when they made gun ownership mandatory? Hell why not take it even further. Get every human being a tank and a 30mm Gatling cannon and we should always wear full body armor it would properly stop all crime. Just because some people is insane in some state in the US and this insane initiative somehow works. We shouldn't use there horrible example. But I guess the gun manufactures is happy. Im actually wondering who wrote that law the gun manufactures or the electors
I was referring to home defense, or personal carry, not tanks and cannons. But its intrigueing to me even with your firm stance you admit mandatory gun ownership works.
|
On December 15 2012 07:24 Stress wrote:In regards to the most recent school shooting in Connecticut, the problem isn't firearms, the problem is the mental unstable people who are able to get access to them. The mental health system is poor in this country and help isn't very easy to obtain unless you have the financial means to do so. Furthermore, unless a doctor thinks you are an immediate threat to yourself/others you cannot be institutionalized unless you admit yourself. If someone wants to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people they will find a way to do it, firearms or no firearms. School attacks in China, for instance, seem to always been done with some kind of knife/blade. Mentally unstable people will just use whatever is available to them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)
Came to post something like this, I would upvote you if I could.
Of course, nobody will actually read this post though.
|
I give up arguing with my fellow US TL members. It seems you been indoctrinated since child hood and is beyond help. (Good job to the US gun industry I must say). All I got to say you reap what you sow. And when the next gun mass school killing happens in the US and you looking for someone to blame. Look in the mirror guys
|
Can anyone find a "countries list by stabbing deaths" list? I think it's a relevant comparison, but havent been able to find one.
|
I'm tired of people talking about Kennesaw. I LIVE in fucking Kennesaw and don't own a gun. The law is literally a joke that was passed in response to a different law at the time. There is 0 enforcement at all. Stop talking about Kennesaw, GA as evidence of anything, because it is not. It is just another town on the outskirts of Atlanta. Pull up Alpharetta gun-related deaths, I bet it is even lower (they have no law about owning guns).
|
On December 15 2012 07:33 Benjamin99 wrote:
I give up arguing with my fellow US TL members. It seems you been indoctrinated since child hood and is beyond help. (Good job to the US gun industry I must say). All I got to say you reap what you sow. And when the next gun mass school killing happens in the US and you looking for someone to blame. Look in the mirror guys
US gun industry? If anything school has taught me respect for the constitution, liberty, personal freedoms, and to question everything. I grew up anti-gun but it was through facts and exposure to those facts that shape my opinions today.
The reason I want everyone to know that gun control laws do not work is because it's true. I would not tell you to google anything and everything you can on it if it were not true.
Unfortunately, that is the reason why I believe you to be the indoctrinated one. It is because you don't look at the facts, at all the studies done by the government and universities throughout the decades showing that gun control does not work.
Use your head, it's your best weapon.
|
On December 15 2012 07:28 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:26 Jamial wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:10 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:08 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 07:06 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 07:04 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:59 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 06:54 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 06:48 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
It doesnt matter? i'm sorry but i never really understood the logic of this arguement. Would they be able to kill as many people as they do with "rocks, sticks, fists" as you say? no probaly not. And if you cant understand that then i will not bother replying to posts like this anymore
Funny coming from a guy that accuses other people of being children. Your logic doesn't make sense, it's the logic of children. If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer. Would that stop people from trying to go on killing sprees though? Doubtful. What's the point that you're trying to make? That without guns in these types of situations less people would die? That's pretty obvious, but what if the criminal decided to take household chemicals and make mustard gas? Then a lot more people would've died. I fail to see your point, if you're even making one. You say make it harder to get guns. I say sure, why not. Again, watch Minority Report. What does that do in the end? Nothing, because most of these cases are perpetrated by people AFTER they've got their gun legally. Do we need to invent a crystal ball to look into the possible future(s) and see if they're going to go banana's? How would that help? Got to "Minority Report" then lol'd. Yes my point is that less people would die, and if you fail to see that point then there is no help for you, like i said in my previous post, i will stop replying if you cant understand it, its like talking to a wall with you. You have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Here, I'll quote to you what I said: "If you're going to say that the rate of death is lower without guns in MASS KILLINGS than that's a no brainer." It's obvious that without guns there would be less killing in the same amount of time. But here is where you fail. If there are no guns, then people will find another way. Getting rid of or making it near impossible to get guns won't stop these situations from happening. I'm not saying don't try to make it stop, but that no matter what you do it will always happen, and by people who don't follow laws. In the end, you hurt law abiding citizens, not the criminals who don't follow the laws. And my point is.. (which you obviously fail to understand because you're either very young or just not that bright) if they did find another way it would be much HARDER to kill the amount of people they normally do in these situations.. your whole gas comment is amusing seeing just how hard that would be to make and transport it to the target without getting caught. I give up on people like you lol What's so hard about driving a speeding car into a crowd of people? Would it kill as many people as a madman with a gun walking around a school shooting kids? Omg is it really that hard to understand lol. Apparently things seem very difficult for you to understand. I suppose by your own logic we should ban smoking too right? Cigarettes and Death
Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:•443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) •49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure •269,655 deaths annually among men •173,940 deaths annually among women http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/Or what about cars? Let's ban cars too: “Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year,” says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention. “That is, on each of the 6,209 consecutive days included in this study, an equivalent of a plane load or more of people died on the roads.”http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html To go off-topic: Smoking should be banned simply for the fact that it makes OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU sick. By smoking you're hurting other people. And smoking is not a societal necessity as being able to drive cars, or fly planes, or whatever else. If I had any say, it would be banned already. Seems to be your culture, to ban everything you don't like. You don't like it, others shouldn't have access to it because they have to feel the same as you. The United States has somewhat more "freedom" in this respect. Sure there are a lot of things wrong with this place, but there are still some people here who respect liberty.
Or you can flip the whole thing and say that the people in the USA are reluctant to make any compromise to live together.
Depends where you are coming from.
|
On December 15 2012 07:28 Infinite976 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:23 HardlyNever wrote:On December 15 2012 07:19 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 07:12 HardlyNever wrote:
Clearly the answer to gun violence is to arm the entire populace. Those kindergarteners should have been packing heat; they could have defended themselves. I think we should start giving guns to all citizens straight after birth.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, how many people have to die before we take gun control in this country in the right direction (more control) and stop letting an uneducated minority (looking at you NRA) hold the rest of the country hostage because their dick is small and they need to carry a gun to compensate. I'm sick of this bullshit. The evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths and the 2nd amendment was written in a time when the reality of state vs populace military power was very different.
The constitution can be changed for a reason. We need to exercise THAT right.
Nearing 300 million guns, almost 1 per citizen, in this country. And your solution is to forcefully ban them all. You also say the evidence is overwhelming that more control = less deaths. HA! If you really believe that, there's a news channel that's great for a person like you (who doesn't like facts), it's called Fox news. I'm liberal by all means but gun control laws are one of the few things the left has completely, COMPLETELY wrong information on. Facts are your friend, google is your friend. Use it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNotice the countries with stronger gun country policies have less deaths. Show me your "facts" now. I imagine you're going to just attack mine without any evidence of your own, though. less deaths by gun you mean... here's an interesting one - http://voices.yahoo.com/firearm-ownership-mandatory-all-households-1418143.html?cat=17mandatory gun ownership in this town = 1 gun death in 3 decades
Since you keep posting about your article.
Population Size - 5000 - 1982
Current - 30,000
Small town settings are not the same as large metropolises.
|
On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:11 Zandar wrote:
ArmOfDeath,
Clearly you are passionate about this subject and thanks for keeping replying.
But please could you tell me why the USA has more deaths by schoolshootings than all other countries in the world COMBINED.
I think it's the gun laws, many people do.
You don't think so. But how do you explain this then I wonder. This is very simple. Guns are banned on school grounds. Guns are also banned in government offices, and in certain places on military bases. If you know that there is a ban on guns, meaning that no one OTHER than a person who is going to break that law is going to have no gun to protect themselves, then your chances of dying while trying to perpetrate the crime are going to be 0. Do the majority of criminals want to die? Or do they want to do what they are going to and then get away? Alive? Where do you have the highest chance of being successful at this? Places where there are bans on bringing a gun. Most of the time, criminals linger and try to keep killing, and that means that the police will show up and then they're screwed. If you went in and just shot a couple people and disappeared, then they would have an extremely high chance of getting away alive. Let's go back to the Dark Knight movie shooting. The shooter in that case had 7 theaters that he could've chosen to go to and do his crime, all withing the same distance as the one he chose. Out of those 7 theaters, only one of them had a total ban on guns. Guess which theater that was? Now, you also have to factor in, that of any of the countries that you use in your statistics like Sweden or Denmark, or any of the other extremely small population countries that you cite, the reason that you don't see crime numbers like you do in the US is because you have (in most of these cases) less than 10% of the population that the US does. Higher population means that you will have more instances of specific violence, and a higher chance that you'll have a larger group of mentally disturbed people that are going to do those crimes. I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft. But that is just what's to be expected with a country with as many freedoms as the US and as high of a population.
Europe has an enormous amount of diversity too. Even within countries.
I don't think the USA and Europe are that different in that matter.
Also, the schoolshooting wiki lists ALL known shootings, in ALL countries.
So also much bigger countries than the USA like China and India.
Still the USA has more deaths by shooting than all countries combined.
I bet the US also has the highest rate of vehicular manslaughter, drug selling, rape, and identity theft
I bet not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
