|
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 08:31 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious! no, i think the sane people are advocating stricter gun laws but not being ignorant to implications of completely banning guns in USA.
Thank you. It's not like we're advocating running around in overalls, straw in mouth yelling 'Merica! I'd say more of letting people that gun control policy is snake oil
|
On December 15 2012 08:35 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote: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. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. If they want to shoot something and call it a sport hand them a bow and a quiver, at least they wont be able to shoot 27 people with this ... so why is shooting a gun a sport, I could also make grenade throwing a sport or shooting bazookas it makes as much sense as shooting rifles as a sport.
Hunting.
|
On December 15 2012 08:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:22 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 08:16 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 08:10 Antyee wrote:On December 15 2012 08:06 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 07:54 Synk wrote:
You bring a gun to a fight, people get shot. You bring a bat to a fight, someone gets knocked out. I think this is wrong. If you gave me a bat and a gun for a weapon in a fight, I'd be less likely to kill someone with the gun. One swing from the bat would likely kill the average person. No it wouldn't. If you could hit someone to death with 1 swing from a baseball bat, you would already be under mental treatment. Only those who are mentally unstable will try to deal a lethal blow to another living person. I honestly don't think I'd be able to fend off an attacker with a baseball bat without dealing a blow that would kill them. They have to be within an arms reach for me to hit them, at which point I can't risk it--I'd swing as hard as I could. To stop them, I'd probably have to hit them in the torso or head. I have no doubt I'd cause some very serious internal bleeding with one blow. If you know how to swing a baseball bat and the attacker is a human being and has any kind of natural reflex, which is kinda mandatory in order to attack you in the first place, you would most likely crush his arm, which is more than enough to stop them; yet not deadly. If you hit him after that, then you should be taken to prison and checked mentally, since beating a harmless person to death with a baseball bat is not too ethical. Especially is he has some kind of weapon of his own. You will unconsciously try and negate the threat first. I'm assuming they have a knife or something like that, and that merely breaking an arm won't "stop" them. You said "knock them out" in your original post. It didn't say "hurt their ego and make them run off with their tail between their legs." I'm assuming I'd have to land one shot to the head or one really good shot to the torso to put them on the ground for good. And I swing a bat as hard as anyone. With a gun (I'm a marksman), I think I have more ability to be discriminate in what I hit. That doesn't mean I'll never kill them, but I think it's less of a chance than with the bat.
I wasn't the one saying knock out, but the guy who said that gun causes death, bat doesn't.
Believe me, if you shatter someone's arm to pieces, he will be stopped by the sheer pain and reason to not get killed.
Stabbing someone with a knife is also quite hard if you can't move your arm moving it.
You are really underestimating the human brain or overestimating the urge to hurt you of the one attacking you. You can pretty easily identify the ones who really attack you to hurt you. And fortunately they are very rare.
I would suggest, that further posts between us about this bat-thing should be discussed in PM-s.
EDIT:
Still waiting for a single study of decent quality to prove that gun control doesn't work.
|
On December 15 2012 08:35 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote: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. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. If they want to shoot something and call it a sport hand them a bow and a quiver, at least they wont be able to shoot 27 people with this ... so why is shooting a gun a sport, I could also make grenade throwing a sport or shooting bazookas it makes as much sense as shooting rifles as a sport.
if there's enough people that wants to, it'll happen.
you dont think there were people that heard of starcraft and video games being gloried as a sport and never thought "pathetic"?
|
On December 15 2012 08:20 magicmUnky wrote:
People are delusional if they think that an armed society will rid itself of crime due to deterrence. If someone intrudes in to your home, will you take their life? So many instances of mistaken identity killings too (recall the father shooting son incident recently). Unfortunately the United States is a boiling pot of information and bias (some good, some bad) so it's really hard to form an opinion there without being influenced by the countless parties trying to form your opinion for you.
At the end of the day, guns are deadly and make it really easy to kill people. Gun control reduces gun-crime by making it much harder for people to obtain guns, body armor, whatever. It also means it's extremely hard to obtain very deadly weapons (automatics, body armor).
People also seem to think that gun control means to outlaw firearms, which is garbage. You can own guns in Australia too, it's just much harder and takes time.. you need to be certified, trained and regulated. The point is, criminals are regularly found with unlicensed firearms that are taken away. Gun advocates would say that's evidence that it doesn't work but in reality it's a disincentive for them to carry firearms and also makes it more difficult to obtain replacements... not to mention it's virtually impossible for an ordinary person to obtain ANYTHING automatic (pistol, SMG, assault, rifle).
As long as you want to live in fear of your fellow citizens arming themselves with deadly force, enjoy living in a country without gun control.
Indeed.
I think the main problem with the gun is that it's just too quick and easy. People make the argument that you could go on a rampage or kill with another weapon, but the truth is that anyone with a gun could kill 20 or so people in the time it would take them to kill a couple with a knife or a baseball bat. In most situations, the gun is the most deadly personal weapon someone can carry.
And it's not just about crimes and random rampages, but having a weapon like that in the house is just an unnecessary risk. Answer me this; if a burglar broke into your house and you were to confront him (which you shouldn't do), would you rather that both you and the burglar had guns or both you and the burglar did not? I know which one I would go for.
In fairness, the problem is a little too deep rooted in the US to just be solved by bringing in a few laws. So if something is changed it would have to be a large scale operation. But it's an operation I would support if I lived there.
|
On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:11 jinorazi wrote:
[quote]
i plan on getting a gun as a hobby, enthusiast. i dont see it any different than golf or car enthusiasm.
home safety is the least of my concern. He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England
"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic
|
Canada11378 Posts
On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote: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. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy.
That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong.
And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
|
On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:12 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
He's trying really hard to keep his argument afloat. Facts always have a way of becoming obstacles.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays? You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic
What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only.
And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you?
|
On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:
However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like.
It's not exactly easy for a private citizen to own an automatic weapon in the states. The act of getting a Class III license is not all that prohibitive for a responsible citizen. See below:
1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.
The major barrier to entry, however, is the cost of the firearm itself, which are in the tens of thousands of dollars. These prices will continue to rise because there are only a finite number of these weapons in existence (only "transferable, i.e. manufactured pre-1986 weapons are available for civilian purchase). This in practice makes legally purchased automatic weapons extremely rare in active shooter type scenarios.
Also, the pseudo-classification of "assault-weapon" is completely inane. Don't use it if you want to have an actual discussion of this issue. If you want to ban rifles, that's fine, it's your personal belief. But let me tell you right now, there is very little variance in the capabilities of something like a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle and a big black scary AR-15. The statement of wanting to ban just "assault-weapons" is an ignorant cop-out that generally does nothing but restrict the rights of responsible citizens.
|
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low.
|
On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote: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. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Why ban assault rifles if handguns are used in the commission of a gun-related crime almost all of the time? Assault weapons, off the cuff, are used 0.5-1% in gun crimes. It is for the "shock" value of events like today, I'm guessing. I do not think removing nearly 300 million guns off 99.99% law abiding American citizens would be the answer.
|
On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low.
Oh, you.
|
On December 15 2012 08:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well they have banned guns in Chicago so if you want to be safe move there.I have heard there is no problem with criminals or gangs there and the murder rate is very low.
LOL.
Someone should google Chicago crime rates. They are by far the highest in the US and they have a total gun ban there. In fact, crime rates soared after they banned guns and has not gone done since, the citizens there are actually trying to fight the ban so they can have a gun for self defense.
|
On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:
[quote]
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays?
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you?
He does. The scope of the case was self-defense. It would presumably be the same for hunting (which wasn't challenged, as the law being challenged permitted hunting weapons--it was a handgun ban).
|
On December 15 2012 08:31 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious! no, i think the sane people are advocating stricter gun laws but not being ignorant to implications of completely banning guns in USA.
That's good.
I wish there was some effort in the US to even try to find a middle ground, but it seems like such a hot button issue that politicians are afraid to touch.
It's in the best interest of gun owners and enthusiasts to demand a better system that rewards responsible ownership.
I would love a world where owning an semi-automatic assault rifle was like earning a black belt in karate or getting your welding ticket. Right now any yahoo can get a gun with little to no qualifications, training or credibility. That's not just a disservice to society as a whole, but to responsible gun owners that constantly have to defend their rights because of the idiocy of others.
|
i personally think that due to the rinciple of M.A.D (mutually asured destruction) nobody would use his weapon on some1 else knowing that the entourage of the guy he used his gun on would juts fuck him up in turn by using hteir guns on him creating an equilibrium safe enough for every1 to carry guns however this wopuld also remove any necesity except as a fashion assessoire to even carry a gun in the first place whihc would in turn make M.A.D obsolete which would reintroduce the need to carry guns.
|
On December 15 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Falling wrote:On December 15 2012 07:49 ArmOfDeath wrote:On December 15 2012 07:37 Zandar wrote:On December 15 2012 07:28 ArmOfDeath wrote: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. I was hoping you would bring up China/India in this. Yes, they have a much larger population than the US does. They also have ~30% (China) and ~68% (India) of their total populations living in poverty (international poverty opposed to the countries individual poverty line. If we put the US in the international poverty line, then it has 0% of its population there). Which would be more important to you in this situation, trying to feed yourself/your family, or buying a gun that you can't afford? Also, because no one actually keeps statistics on this, I would bet my life that both China and India have a significantly higher homicide rate with knives than the US does. Again, this comes back to my original point. If a criminal wants to hurt other people, he will find a way, with, or without guns. That may very well be. But it is a little difficult to mass with a knife. You can't exactly mow down a crowd with a knife. I don't at all advocate total gun bans. I don't think it would work and I'm all for long guns and hunting even if I don't do it myself. I will also accept the self-defence/ home invasion argument even if I don't own a gun at all and don't feel the need to own one for defensive purposes. However, I do think it is worth looking at further restricting the number of automatic weapons and the like for the average private citizen. "Criminals will find a way" I'll grant, but that doesn't necessitate having society awash with automatic weapons, assault weapons and the like. "You can kill a person with a knife too" ignores the rapid destruction capable from military grade weapons. The comparison is not equivalent. Yeah, domestic violence leading to murder can start with a frying pan all the way up to a machine gun or a rocket launcher. We might not stop the domestic murder as we're not going to ban frying pans, but the potential for destruction in a machine gun or rocket launcher is considerably more than an iron-cast pan. I don't the question is should citizens have access to firepower at all, but to what extent? Can you define an assault weapon? People will soon realize they cannot. California tried and came up with terms like "evil looking features". You'll find you're going to be coming up with a lot of weird terms and conditionals for it to work. What's the difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic and a .223 sporting rifle? What makes one an assault rifle and the other a sporting one? They can be the same but also "different" at the same time? Machine guns are already banned in most places, but that's not what assault rifles are. The point is that gun control laws are propagated mostly by people who do not understand or know enough about the topic. This leads to many problems with policy. That only speaks to the difficulty of implementing such a policy. Not that the policy itself is wrong. And perhaps a more knowledgeable person needs be consulted. Ignorance makes any policy difficult. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
The funny thing is, only the most insane people really don't believe in gun control at all.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm
I personally can't call any of those anything but a good start. Tack on some mandatory training before you can legally keep a firearm outside of a gun safe or get a CHL, and then properly enforce the restrictions on gun sales, and it wouldn't be too bad.
But, unfortunately, most people who want to increase regulation want to throw in arbitrary restrictions that don't really make a difference. Magazine capacity isn't the problem, the problem is that it's too easy to make a gun fall off the books.
|
On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 flexgd wrote:
[quote]
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
doesnt say anything about carrying guns as a hobby. so do you think the u.s. needs "a well regulated militia to secure the free state" nowadays?
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you?
no i dont need to. and yes you do. if there is another lawful purpose under which u bought the gun please tell me (hint : you cant) therefor all i can say is: i won the argument as i am the only one that stated facts so all thats left to say is
umad bro?
and never look at this thread again to have the last word. your country is doomed bro. you should leave the sinking ship while u still can...wouldnt want to live in an anarchy with so many guns
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 15 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 15 2012 08:30 Defacer wrote:
Is this the thread where gun enthusiasts try to defend the America's entirely lax, inconsistent and poorly enforced gun laws by comparing guns (poorly) to cars, bats, and knives?
In some cities it's illegal to have a sell or own a concealable folding knife (switch blade), but you can get a concealed carry permit. Hilarious! no, i think the sane people are advocating stricter gun laws but not being ignorant to implications of completely banning guns in USA. That's good. I wish there was some effort in the US to even try to find a middle ground, but it seems like such a hot button issue that politicians are afraid to touch. It's in the best interest of gun owners and enthusiasts to demand a better system that rewards responsible ownership. I would love a world where owning an semi-automatic assault rifle was like earning a black belt in karate or getting your welding ticket. Right now any yahoo can get a gun with little to no qualifications, training or credibility. That's not just a disservice to society as a whole, but to responsible gun owners that constantly have to defend their rights because of the idiocy of others.
I agree with your idea. Owning a firearm is a privilege that should be respected. I'm always bitter against those who use guns in commission of a crime because it completely puts at risk everything law abiding 2nd amendment activists have been fighting for.
|
On December 15 2012 08:49 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:40 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:38 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:34 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:28 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:26 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:25 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:24 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 08:23 flexgd wrote:On December 15 2012 08:22 Nagano wrote:
[quote]
You forgot to address the second part of that constitutional amendment, bro. Being which? "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." read again its right there I said you did not ADDRESS it. You quoted it but only addressed/acknowledged the first part, phrasing your question with only regard to the part about militias. obviously i did i was asking if the right to keep and bear arms to secure the free state via militias was still necessary You see what you did right there? You used the right to keep and bear arms clause as a requisite of the first part of the amendment. You're twisting the entire amendment without even knowing where the wording of that amendment even came from. Hint: Commentaries on the Laws of England "In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So being the law-abiding and liberty-loving citizen you are you obviously bought your gun to defend yourself as that is the only legal reason to possess one. basically your own supreme court is giving you the freedom to defend yourself with a gun because the legislation itself cannot protect you otherwise from the many guns in your country. pathetic What's more pathetic is that first paragraph you quoted completely thwarts your first attempt at trying to phrase the second amendment as for militias only. And I didn't realize they said self-defense was the only purpose of firearms. I guess I need to brush up on my reading skills. Or do you? no i dont need to. and yes you do. if there is another lawful purpose under which u bought the gun please tell me (hint : you cant) therefor all i can say is: i won the argument as i am the only one that stated facts so all thats left to say is umad bro? and never look at this thread again to have the last word. your country is doomed bro. you should leave the sinking ship while u still can...wouldnt want to live in an anarchy with so many guns
You couldn't have ended on a better note. Thanks for this post, I'll cherish it forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
