|
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 11:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 10:50 guN-viCe wrote:On December 15 2012 10:27 zdfgucker wrote:On December 15 2012 10:16 guN-viCe wrote:
You're missing the point. A gun is very efficient at killing people, no one disagrees with you. It's a moot point though, because if a psycho wants to kill a lot of people, he will do so even without a gun.
It's not a moot point. The police can storm a building if they know the guy is armed with a swiss army knife. Try doing that against an automatic weapon. Also, you can run away from that. Escaping someone who enters the room and sprays bullets everywhere.. well, good luck. How hard is it to make a bomb or to buy a stick of dynamite? Are you serious? In ANY halfway normal country you can't just buy dynamite. Building bombs, well chances are that you get caught or the bomb never explodes. Average joe is not trained in it. I disagree with so much of this post: - We're not talking swiss army knives-- this is hyperbole. - Law enforcement is trained to deal with crazies with automatic weapons. It's not ideal, but they manage just fine. 30v1, who wins? - Ever heard of the unabomber? The guy who sent bombs through the mail. You realize there are recipes to make bombs online, right? I went to a fireworks stand and a guy had 1/2 a stick of dynamite(or so he said), and set it off. Dynamite is used for industrial purposes in pretty much every country. -James Holmes(Joker wannabe killer) rigged his apartment with explosives. - Average joe =/= crazy mass murderer And how many bombers compared to mass shooters?
will be lot more if we follow that guy's logic and repeal all the regulations and controls regarding explosives...
|
On December 15 2012 10:55 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:06 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote: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 tend to think most people are for stricter accounting of guns. The problem is that opposition to guns invariably tries to limit ownership in some way (even if just by raising costs of ownership), which roundly gets defeated. I mean, you already have to register all guns. My dream scenario would be putting different guns in different classes, starting from hunting rifles and graduating to handguns and then to semi-assault weapons, and forcing a gun owner to go through training and graduated licensing for different classes of guns. I think different classes of guns, like different classes of vehicles, justifies having different limitations on ownership and operation. So a form of graduated licensing. Hell, training and administration with weapons can be handled by gun clubs ... Experienced gun owners know better than anyone who should be handling a gun or not. I keep thinking back to how James Holmes was denied membership to gun club, simply because the manager of the club took the time to listen to his voicemail and knew immediately he was too sketchy to playing with guns. So to me, it's less about limiting gun ownership, and more about limiting incompetence and laziness. I think there should a clear and sensible pathway for civilians to earn the ability to own and carry guns.
Then stupid people would be defenseless. It's a tough thing, the existence of guns is pretty scary overall.
|
On December 15 2012 11:04 StreetWise wrote:
In a country of 350 million, a story like this, while tragic, is not enough to cause knee jerk reactions and shouldn't make people want to control guns. Why do you need a new law every time something bad happens. According to the National Weather Service 27 people died in the US from being struck by lightning, should we create laws making it illegal to go outside during a storm? The right to own weapons is a Constitutional right in the US. You can either have safety or freedom, you can't have both as one tends to take away from the other. I for one choose freedom.
This post resembles a lot of the train of thought for the pro-gun culture.
it really saddens me.
|
On December 15 2012 10:50 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 10:40 guN-viCe wrote:On December 15 2012 10:19 NIJ wrote:On December 15 2012 10:16 guN-viCe wrote:On December 15 2012 09:52 NeonFox wrote:On December 15 2012 09:47 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:38 CV-Mackh wrote:On December 15 2012 09:12 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 09:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus. Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101 I know it was sarcastic lol, but most of these foreigners don't know what goes down in Chicago and New York city where there are total gun bans. Crime rates soar, the worst crime in the United States happens where there are total gun bans. Gosh the arguments here XD There are densely populated area, plus the fact that you can basically drive by the nearest state and get all the guns you want kind of negates the ban. Exactly as weed consumption is higher in the North of Belgium (close to Netherlands border for the Americans), crime doesn't know any borders... crossing them with goods is even one of the main way of fueling it so ... In the US, under no circumstances is it legal to purchase/sell any handgun/rifle/shotgun face to face from a resident of any other state without involving a FFL in the buyers home state. Laymen: you cannot buy a guy from another state unless it is legal for you to own in yours. That's not the point. It's not legal, but it's easy since so much guns are in circulation right next to you. Owning a gun is not the pinacle of liberty, is my liberty being restricted if I'm not allowed to buy a landmine? I just want to use it to defend my home, I should be able to. On December 15 2012 09:50 guN-viCe wrote:On December 15 2012 09:38 CV-Mackh wrote:On December 15 2012 09:12 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 09:10 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
It would be nice to be able to make an ironic or sarcastic comment without having to explain that it was thus. Forreal bro. Esk you ruin the joke if you have to explain it! Comedy 101 I know it was sarcastic lol, but most of these foreigners don't know what goes down in Chicago and New York city where there are total gun bans. Crime rates soar, the worst crime in the United States happens where there are total gun bans. Gosh the arguments here XD There are densely populated area, plus the fact that you can basically drive by the nearest state and get all the guns you want kind of negates the ban. Exactly as weed consumption is higher in the North of Belgium (close to Netherlands border for the Americans), crime doesn't know any borders... crossing them with goods is even one of the main way of fueling it so ... The point is, as a quite classical french dude, if I was falling into a nervous breakdown ( let's say a protoss canon rushed my third for the 10th time on the ladder), I could not easily get a gun, it would take me a long time to actually find one ( I am not in a gang or anything ) so I won't be going mad killing people around while yelling about the power of the swarm. Because all I would have would be a cooking knife. I can comprehend that a policeman or a military need them but why giving them to everyone ? We know that the human's mind can be weak and is mostly gonna breakdown during a life time, why would we give humans the means to achieve their worst morbid fantasies ? What about knives, swords, axes, cars? Those can do a LOT of damage. What about home-made bombs and home-made poisons? Recipes are on the internet for anyone who wants to know. Should we ban all chemicals too? You cannot stop all murderous intent. Of course you can't, but you can limit it. I'd rather face someone that grabbed a knife in a fit of rage than someone that grabbed a gun? Chemicals have many uses the comparison doesn't hold. I'm also pretty sure you are not allowed to roam around town holding an axe or a sword. And there is no denying a gun is more dangerous than a sword, you'd have to be pretty thick to really think that. You're missing the point. A gun is very efficient at killing people, no one disagrees with you. It's a moot point though, because if a psycho wants to kill a lot of people, he will do so even without a gun. and thats a moot point too since i dont think anyone here is claiming to eliminate mass murder, rather reduce it. One way of doing that is to make the process a bit more inefficient? Your first sentence is a straw-man, my posts speak for themselves and I never made a statement in regards to eliminating/reducing. I simply said that banning guns won't stop mass murderers(they will purchase illegal guns or kill via other methods). totally stopping an occurence from happening is eliminating....
I see what you're referring to, when I said "You cannot stop all murderous intent". Yes, banning guns will make it more difficult to mass-murder. To what extent though, and is it worth it?
|
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there).
|
On December 15 2012 10:19 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:38 Nagano wrote:
First of all, .223 and .308s are used for hunting all the time. It allows for more ethical killing. The same way you want the heaviest draw weight on your bow.
Also, I don't understand why people think a cycling mechanism for the bolt would make it an "assault" rifle. That's exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the ambiguity of trying to define an AR. I know they are, what I am saying is that they are the only really two calibers that are used in assault rifles that arn't custom(bar the AK47 and some other obscure ones that I don't think are relevant). The caliber alone is not enough to define an assault rifle, but combined with a fully automatic mode of fire and 20 rounds in a magazine, you will be hard pressed to find anything that isn't. I do agree that assault rifle is an ambigous term, but we both know what it is. It is a smaller and lighter rifle designed to put a lot of bullets through the air as fast as possible without being bulky like a machine gun. Because regular infantry fighting range is generally shorter than most hunting and you value quality over quantity, you go for shorter barrels and either iron sights or some sort of aimpoint. So essentially any rifle that can shoot a lot is an assault rifle, automatic or semi-automatic. machine guns are not really different in that regard, just not as portable. The german term "Sturmgevehr" implies taking ground, as opposed to just sitting in a trench firing. I would say the main difference is that you more mobile with an assault rifle than with a machine gun. And yes, the modern machine guns sortof blurs the edges there as well. Still, what kind of rifle has 20 or more rounds in a magazine that isnt a machine gun or an assault rifle? If sub machineguns fall into this genre, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, since they are not used to sport or hunting as far as I know.
I'm borrowing this from beammeupscotty on shotgunworld with regards to your statements about high capacity magazines. You will see it just isn't worth it.
I'll take a stab at giving you some reasons why.
First, although I cannot back it up with any facts, I think we can probably agree that the vast majority of people who purchase high capacity magazines for their firearms do NOT commit mass murder with them. Can we agree on that assumption? I am also going to operate on the assumption that if only one or two people were murdered, that high cap vs. low cap magazines are not an issue. Only large numbers of murders at one time by a single individual seem to prompt calls for more regulation, so I am only going to deal with those sorts of crimes when discussing such regulation. Does that seem fair to you as well?
(March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.)
In that same year there were a reported 11346 murders in total (based on info from this link: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm). That means that about .05% of all murders for that year were possibly committed with a weapon using a high cap magazine (though I don't know for certain that such a weapon was used in that instance). Sometimes government statistics don't match up too well. For that same year the FBI (which is a part of the DOJ, same as the BJA http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) lists 16,740, making the possible high cap murders in that year only .035% of all murders that year.
Looking at an especially bad year, 2007 and the Virginia Tech shootings, the total murders for that year were 11,493 and 32 people were killed. That means that in 2007 .27% of the murders were committed with weapons using high cap magazines, or in which high cap magazines may have been an issue. Just about 1/4 of 1%
You can go through the statistics year by year and find the same thing. Always less than 1% of the murders committed in any given year where high capacity magazines might have been an issue. In most years that figure is less than a half percent and in many it is less than .05%. That is 5 100ths of a percent of all murders in a year. And for that 5-100ths of a percent, you are proposing to restrict the access to high capacity magazine for the literally tens of millions of people who would like to purchase them.
I'd also like to point out that while these high profile mass shootings make it seem like gun crime is on the rise, aided by the media constantly putting people on the air who assert that "there is an epidemic of gun crime in the U.S.", the actual statistics show exactly the opposite. From the FBI statistics (which are HIGHER than those from the BJA statistics), the number to total murders is actually dropping, not increasing. (I just realized that the FBI statistics I am referencing are for ALL murders, not just gun murders, which may explain the discrepancy between the two sources).
Anyway, the point is that the number of murders where high capacity magazines are a factor is actually very small and in addition to that, the actual total number of murders overall is falling. So why, in light of those facts, would you propose to restrict the rights of your fellow shooters to high capacity magazines, when that would make no appreciable difference in the total number of murders committed in any given year?
Here is another point. In the same year that the Virginia Tech shooting took place, when there were a total of 16,929 murders, and according to the CDC, 11,493 gun homicides, there were also 41,059 deaths in automobiles. That is slightly under 4 times more deaths. It seems to me that if we were to restrict cars to 50 horse power, and the speed limit to 45 mph, that we would save many more lives than restricting high capacity magazines would. Why are you not proposing those sorts of measures? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)
From the CDC web site:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
Quote:
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.1,2
Are you proposing to make smoking illegal? I doubt it.
The point is, that while I often am dismayed when my conservative friends react in irrational ways to things that don't actually exist or "facts" that are false, my liberal friends are often guilty of exactly the same sort of errors of judgement. Gun control and the even more silly magazine control issue, are examples of the these sorts of errors by the latter group. If you really want to save lives, make driving drunk a capital crime or better yet, make it a capital crime to drive with ANY amount of alcohol in your system, with mandatory jail time. Make cars less powerful and and speed limits ridiculously low. Make smoking a felony. Of course, I don't expect you to do so. Certainly the odds are that you have driven when you have had more to drink than you should have. Most people, myself included, have. Proposing a law that would make ANY amount of alcohol in your system would seriously affect me and a huge number of other people, probably yourself included and because it will actually affect you, I would not expect you to support it. Likewise, restricting cars to 50 h.p. and 45 m.p.h. would also affect you, so even though it would probably save thousands of lives a year, I doubt that you would support it. One big problem with proposing legislation like high cap magazine restriction (apart from second amendment issues) is that the people who always propose such things are NOT the people who will be affected by it. The same thing with other forms of gun control. Just listening to the proponents on the news makes it quite clear that virtually NONE of those who support restricting gun rights are actually gun owners or know anything about the habits of gun owners. Clearly, unless you are a troll (which I am not suggesting) you too are a gun owner, but I doubt you have or use any high capacity magazines. If you did, I seriously doubt you would be proposing restrictions on ownership of such magazines. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
So these are some of the reasons that I personally don't support restricting ownership of high capacity magazines. I do in fact own some, though never actually use them. Restricting them would really not affect me personally, but I still would not support such legislation because of all the other law abiding gun owners who DO use them, and because implementing such legislation would do virtually NOTHING to limit the number of people killed with guns each year.
Feel free to rebut any of these points that you do not feel are valid.
|
On December 15 2012 11:06 MetalPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 10:55 Defacer wrote:On December 15 2012 09:06 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 08:46 Defacer wrote: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 tend to think most people are for stricter accounting of guns. The problem is that opposition to guns invariably tries to limit ownership in some way (even if just by raising costs of ownership), which roundly gets defeated. I mean, you already have to register all guns. My dream scenario would be putting different guns in different classes, starting from hunting rifles and graduating to handguns and then to semi-assault weapons, and forcing a gun owner to go through training and graduated licensing for different classes of guns. I think different classes of guns, like different classes of vehicles, justifies having different limitations on ownership and operation. So a form of graduated licensing. Hell, training and administration with weapons can be handled by gun clubs ... Experienced gun owners know better than anyone who should be handling a gun or not. I keep thinking back to how James Holmes was denied membership to gun club, simply because the manager of the club took the time to listen to his voicemail and knew immediately he was too sketchy to playing with guns. So to me, it's less about limiting gun ownership, and more about limiting incompetence and laziness. I think there should a clear and sensible pathway for civilians to earn the ability to own and carry guns. Then stupid people would be defenseless. It's a tough thing, the existence of guns is pretty scary overall.
Like martial arts, part of gun training would including teaching gun owners about when conflict is justified, how to avoid or engage in conflict, and when it is appropriate to defend yourself, the stupid, the weak, children and certain animals.
But seriously, it's weird that someone in the US can buy a gun without necessarily knowing or understanding the gun or self-defense laws in there state. That's like giving a learner's permit to potential driver but not being sure if they know what to do at a stop or yield sign.
|
On December 15 2012 10:50 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 10:27 zdfgucker wrote:On December 15 2012 10:16 guN-viCe wrote:
You're missing the point. A gun is very efficient at killing people, no one disagrees with you. It's a moot point though, because if a psycho wants to kill a lot of people, he will do so even without a gun.
It's not a moot point. The police can storm a building if they know the guy is armed with a swiss army knife. Try doing that against an automatic weapon. Also, you can run away from that. Escaping someone who enters the room and sprays bullets everywhere.. well, good luck. How hard is it to make a bomb or to buy a stick of dynamite? Are you serious? In ANY halfway normal country you can't just buy dynamite. Building bombs, well chances are that you get caught or the bomb never explodes. Average joe is not trained in it. I disagree with so much of this post: - We're not talking swiss army knives-- this is hyperbole. - Law enforcement is trained to deal with crazies with automatic weapons. It's not ideal, but they manage just fine. 30v1, who wins? - Ever heard of the unabomber? The guy who sent bombs through the mail. You realize there are recipes to make bombs online, right? I went to a fireworks stand and a guy had 1/2 a stick of dynamite(or so he said), and set it off. Dynamite is used for industrial purposes in pretty much every country. -James Holmes(Joker wannabe killer) rigged his apartment with explosives. - Average joe =/= crazy mass murderer
IT's still not that easy. The police found a bomb in Bonn (germany) just a few days ago. News reports say that the bomb triggered but failed to explode.
One needs at least some basic understanding in electric engineering and chemistry.
|
On December 15 2012 11:08 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:04 StreetWise wrote:
In a country of 350 million, a story like this, while tragic, is not enough to cause knee jerk reactions and shouldn't make people want to control guns. Why do you need a new law every time something bad happens. According to the National Weather Service 27 people died in the US from being struck by lightning, should we create laws making it illegal to go outside during a storm? The right to own weapons is a Constitutional right in the US. You can either have safety or freedom, you can't have both as one tends to take away from the other. I for one choose freedom. This post resembles a lot of the train of thought for the pro-gun culture. it really saddens me.
Why does it sadden you? He brings a valid point. There are nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S.. An autistic man, with asberger's and a personality disorder according to news sources, gets access to his mother's guns and kills children. The response is to ban guns nationwide? 350 million people?
I would prefer we looked at reinstating a now near non-existent mental healthcare system and getting to these people before they have a chance to lash out before we take away citizens' liberties.
|
On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there).
Thats a very defeatist argument.
I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s...
|
On December 15 2012 11:22 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there). Thats a very defeatist argument. I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s...
You want to protect rights? Civil rights and gay rights fall under the 14th amendment, marijuana under the 10th amendment for states' rights and sovereignty. The right to bear arms falls under the 2nd amendment. You can't pick and choose which constitutional rights you want, buddy.
|
Instead of talking about prohibition (which unfortunately doesn't have a great track record for working as intended, and often makes the situation worse), how about we just use our freedom of speech to make a moral argument against gun ownership and apply pressure that way?
Frankly, people who own assault weapons are totally fucking lame. Sure you can own hunting rifles because hunting is a legitimate pastime, and can serve an ecological and agricultural purpose (I.e., an unfortunate consequence of the decline in wolf populations is overpopulation of prey species, deer for example) there's no purpose for people who own assault rifles/handguns. As somebody from a military family, when I see d-bags thinking that they're swat team members who will singlehandedly stop a bank robbery, my eyes could not roll farther into the back of my head. There's very little evidence that gun armed populations are safer from being victimized, but plenty of evidence that it increases the likelihood for accidental deaths, and transfer of weapons into criminal hands through theft/mismanagement. Guns are not fun, guns are not for fun. Guns are for killing people, and to have one is a great responsibility and people have to respect that this is their purpose, this is what they're for; and to make a toy out of a tool responsible for millions of deaths is pathetic.
Lets not try to take guns away, let's call wannabe soldier of fortune psychos out for being the pathetic dbags that they are.
|
On December 15 2012 11:21 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:08 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 11:04 StreetWise wrote:
In a country of 350 million, a story like this, while tragic, is not enough to cause knee jerk reactions and shouldn't make people want to control guns. Why do you need a new law every time something bad happens. According to the National Weather Service 27 people died in the US from being struck by lightning, should we create laws making it illegal to go outside during a storm? The right to own weapons is a Constitutional right in the US. You can either have safety or freedom, you can't have both as one tends to take away from the other. I for one choose freedom. This post resembles a lot of the train of thought for the pro-gun culture. it really saddens me. Why does it sadden you? He brings a valid point. There are nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S.. An autistic man, with asberger's and a personality disorder according to news sources, gets access to his mother's guns and kills children. The response is to ban guns nationwide? 350 million people? I would prefer we looked at reinstating a now near non-existent mental healthcare system and getting to these people before they have a chance to lash out before we take away citizens' liberties.
It saddens me that people consider having tools for killing one another a liberty, a freedom, and right.
I dont want to get into a nationalist debate, but i really dislike american culture for its lack of humanity. How can you love a country where you need to hold a tool designed for killing people in order to feel safe? why not move? It makes me so damn confused why people think its a good thing to have the power to kill one another at any moment.
|
Retarded America will decide we need more guns so that some random guy with a gun will save us from big shootings like this. Has that ever happened?
|
On December 15 2012 11:25 YumYumGranola wrote:
Instead of talking about prohibition (which unfortunately doesn't have a great track record for working as intended, and often makes the situation worse), how about we just use our freedom of speech to make a moral argument against gun ownership and apply pressure that way?
Frankly, people who own assault weapons are totally fucking lame. Sure you can own hunting rifles because hunting is a legitimate pastime, and can serve an ecological and agricultural purpose (I.e., an unfortunate consequence of the decline in wolf populations is overpopulation of prey species, deer for example) there's no purpose for people who own assault rifles/handguns. As somebody from a military family, when I see d-bags thinking that they're swat team members who will singlehandedly stop a bank robbery, my eyes could not roll farther into the back of my head. There's very little evidence that gun armed populations are safer from being victimized, but plenty of evidence that it increases the likelihood for accidental deaths, and transfer of weapons into criminal hands through theft/mismanagement. Guns are not fun, guns are not for fun. Guns are for killing people, and to have one is a great responsibility and people have to respect that this is their purpose, this is what they're for; and to make a toy out of a tool responsible for millions of deaths is pathetic.
Lets not try to take guns away, let's call wannabe soldier of fortune psychos out for being the pathetic dbags that they are.
I believe you're seriously misrepresenting people who own firearms and "assault weapons". Most are professional, middle-aged family people with careers.
|
On December 15 2012 11:19 Defacer wrote:
Like martial arts, part of gun training would including teaching gun owners about when conflict is justified, how to avoid or engage in conflict, and when it is appropriate to defend yourself, the stupid, the weak, children and certain animals.
But seriously, it's weird that someone in the US can buy a gun without necessarily knowing or understanding the gun or self-defense laws in there state. That's like giving a learner's permit to potential driver but not being sure if they know what to do at a stop or yield sign.
No not really. Where as a person getting their permit plans on excising their newly acquired privilege ASAP (and will for the most part be required for them to do for the rest of their lives), very few people purchase a weapon with the intent to immediately go out and defend themselves. It doesn't take a genius to know you only use a weapon when your lives in eminent danger (generally its fairly easy to tell when someone is trying to kill you).
|
On December 15 2012 11:21 Nagano wrote:
I would prefer we looked at reinstating a now near non-existent mental healthcare system and getting to these people before they have a chance to lash out before we take away citizens' liberties.
I wish they would do something about the private gun seller loophole (allowing private gun owners to sell guns without a background check) while they're at it.
|
On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:22 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there). Thats a very defeatist argument. I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s... You want to protect rights? Civil rights and gay rights fall under the 14th amendment, marijuana under the 10th amendment for states' rights and sovereignty. The right to bear arms falls under the 2nd amendment. You can't pick and choose which constitutional rights you want, buddy.
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.
This doesn't read like: give every wacko a gun because hurr durr he wants it.
|
On December 15 2012 11:25 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:21 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:08 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 11:04 StreetWise wrote:
In a country of 350 million, a story like this, while tragic, is not enough to cause knee jerk reactions and shouldn't make people want to control guns. Why do you need a new law every time something bad happens. According to the National Weather Service 27 people died in the US from being struck by lightning, should we create laws making it illegal to go outside during a storm? The right to own weapons is a Constitutional right in the US. You can either have safety or freedom, you can't have both as one tends to take away from the other. I for one choose freedom. This post resembles a lot of the train of thought for the pro-gun culture. it really saddens me. Why does it sadden you? He brings a valid point. There are nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S.. An autistic man, with asberger's and a personality disorder according to news sources, gets access to his mother's guns and kills children. The response is to ban guns nationwide? 350 million people? I would prefer we looked at reinstating a now near non-existent mental healthcare system and getting to these people before they have a chance to lash out before we take away citizens' liberties. It saddens me that people consider having tools for killing one another a liberty, a freedom, and right. I dont want to get into a nationalist debate, but i really dislike american culture for its lack of humanity. How can you love a country where you need to hold a tool designed for killing people in order to feel safe? why not move? It makes me so damn confused why people think its a good thing to have the power to kill one another at any moment.
As I said in another post, half of all households in the US have at least one firearm. Most are professional adults with careers and families and think nothing more of a firearm as something they have locked up in the closet, much like other weapons like bows and arrows. You are not using reasoning, instead portraying firearm owners as irresponsible rednecks clinging to their guns. This just isn't the case.
|
On December 15 2012 11:22 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Guns will never be banned in the United States. Argue, disagree, do what makes you feel good, but at the end of your rant remember that it won't happen in my lifetime or yours (unless of course we lose the constitution and have to draft another one and forget to put that little insignificant clause in there). Thats a very defeatist argument. I can almost guarantee you, that your parents probably said the same for gay marriage, marijuana, and to a lesser extent, civil rights. Its silly to think that nothing can change in our lifetime.. people can do anything. our generation is very different from the one currently in power.. think how things might be when we are all in our 50s-60s...
None of those mentioned changes involved amending the Constitution. Our Forefathers knew that this right was a very important right as it gives leverage to the common man to defend his freedom should the Government no longer represent the will of the People. I
know that many young middle class people like to view the world as a place where peace longs to be present and only those with guns threaten it. This is only half right. Only bad people with guns threaten this peaceful, sheltered lifestyle so many middle class people lead, however they forget they live like this because there are good people with guns out there protecting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
