|
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 11:51 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote: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. No, no it doesn't. It does, however, explicitly state that we keep the right available to every citizen qualified for it. There are many restrictions as to who can purchase what type of weapon, varying state to state. The man who shot up the school today had unlocked access to his mother's firearms. According to news sources he was also mentally unstable, autistic, and had personality disorders. The logical conclusion here is to not abandon founding principles but to look at how this man fell through the cracks. Well for me the first part shows the intend that the Arms should be used to organize to defend the security of the free state. This job was taken by real Militias until 1905. Now you have so called militias who paint their rifle in Hello Kitty style and meet at the weekend to fire some bullets into the wilderness. I thought the 2nd amendment just said: Weapons for everyone but upon seeing the exact wording in the context of the defensive system of the US at that time I do believe it is a relict of the past which lost its validity. Because strictly speaking also the right to own anti tank/aircraft/ship missiles could be justified with the defense of the nation. But hey, even judges at the supreme court disagree with me so who cares  You're right, Supreme Court judges do disagree with you.
Sure but why not anti aircraft missiles for everyone? I need to defend the states!! 9/11!!!??
|
On December 15 2012 11:39 Eishi_Ki wrote:
'We must protect our civil liberties!'
Do you really think there is a single person in a true first world country who feels even remotely oppressed that they can't own a gun?
A car causes deaths. Verb association: driving
A cigarette causes deaths. Verb association: smoking
Alcohol causes deaths. Verb association: drinking
Guns cause deaths. Verb association: .............
Fill in the blank; but if I was to see a gun, it certainly wouldn't be ' protecting'
'Deterring' comes to mind. And it's not even that a criminal knows someone to be armed. It's that the criminal has no idea whether people are armed, and how many. You don't often hear news reports of gun shops being robbed, not during business hours, at least. However, we see stories of places where guns are prohibited being violated all too frequently these days.
Having said that, there are times when it doesn't much matter. This kid that shot up the school and killed his parents didn't see a gun and decide it would be a good idea to kill some people that day. He had decided to kill himself and take many people out with him. If guns didn't exist, he would have accomplished it with some other weapon, a bomb, fire, knife, car, whatever.
|
On December 15 2012 11:53 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:51 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote: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. No, no it doesn't. It does, however, explicitly state that we keep the right available to every citizen qualified for it. There are many restrictions as to who can purchase what type of weapon, varying state to state. The man who shot up the school today had unlocked access to his mother's firearms. According to news sources he was also mentally unstable, autistic, and had personality disorders. The logical conclusion here is to not abandon founding principles but to look at how this man fell through the cracks. Well for me the first part shows the intend that the Arms should be used to organize to defend the security of the free state. This job was taken by real Militias until 1905. Now you have so called militias who paint their rifle in Hello Kitty style and meet at the weekend to fire some bullets into the wilderness. I thought the 2nd amendment just said: Weapons for everyone but upon seeing the exact wording in the context of the defensive system of the US at that time I do believe it is a relict of the past which lost its validity. Because strictly speaking also the right to own anti tank/aircraft/ship missiles could be justified with the defense of the nation. But hey, even judges at the supreme court disagree with me so who cares You're right, Supreme Court judges do disagree with you. Sure but why not anti aircraft missiles for everyone? I need to defend the states!! 9/11!!!??
When you're ready to come back down to reason let me know.
|
On December 15 2012 11:51 Nagano wrote:
3. Guns need to be respected. The firearm community looks down upon those who view it as toys or those who feel they're GI Joe. I agree, they're douchebags.
Totally agree with this. That's what I have issue with. There is no system in the US that justifies guns or gun owners should be respected, because any knuckle-dragger can get one.
Ideally, organizations like the NRA should be taking the lead on this, but they constantly lobby for less regulation, when they should be lobbying for regulations that reward responsible gun owners.
|
|
|
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead.
|
On December 15 2012 09:59 B1nary wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 15 2012 08:45 Esk23 wrote: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. 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. It's true that those can do a lot of damage, but none of them allow one to commit mass-murder as easily as one can with a gun. I don't think guns should be banned, but I hope we can find some way to make it harder for someone to point-and-kill.
you can make it harder for someone to point-and-kill by making him afraid of other people point-and-killing him in retaliation. most gun-enabled massacres happen in places where the gunman has absolute combat superiority like odysseus and his couple of comrades mowing down the party guests. even if no one in the area has a gun, just the idea that several potential targets might be packing heat would dissuade all but the most insane/suicidal shooters. the ones who still made an attempt would at least be somewhat easier to deal with quickly.
then again, you'd have to deal with the random arguments that end with a bar brawl or etc. having the potential to escalate into the basement scene from inglourious basterds. so that's not great.
still, i'd rather have power in my hands than out of them. outlawing guns doesn't prevent people who already operate outside the law from acquiring them. stopping production doesn't remove guns from the market, and their lifespans are remarkably long with even the most cursory maintenance.
and beyond the self-defense aspects, there's a reason that every despot in the history of the world has outlawed weapons apart from those wielded by his military. i like my second amendment. we might not need it now or even in a hundred years, but you never know when your government is going to turn on you.
|
On December 15 2012 11:52 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:42 guN-viCe wrote:On December 15 2012 11:19 Hryul wrote: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 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. It's difficult to construct a bomb properly I'm sure, yet I'm finding articles on google about people killing others with bombs. It's possible and it happens. What about suicide bombers? Legal explosives? Black market already assembled explosives? The point I tried to make was: It is harder to make a homemade bombe properly than to shop a gun and use it.
Oh, I agree with you.
|
The biggest problem I have with banning guns is the question of, "What do we do as a nation when we no longer agree with the course of governments actions?"
If guns are illegal in that situation, eventually our government can simply shoot people who dissent. We would no longer have any chance of overthrowing the government without a military coup. Immigrating to another country can be limited in the same way North Korea limits escape(ie. shooting your family if you leave). If you look back to the american revolution, you can see quite clearly that free access to weaponry and the ability to form a militia was one of the most important things that allowed the colonies to escape from under the kings thumb.
Without guns in the hands of the citizens, it's quite simply impossible to have any sort of revolution. Not that we want one at the current time, but government gets more and more corrupt over time if history is any judge.
The hard question that this brings up is, "Is banning guns and preventing a small amount of deaths(even smaller if you subtract deaths that would have happened with a different weapon and deaths that would happen with illegal guns) worth giving the government the power to do whatever it wants regardless of its citizens wishes?"
|
On December 15 2012 11:57 ticklishmusic wrote:so uh, feelings on this article? http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-02-02.htmlidk, isnt saying more weapons prevent violence saying the same as nuclear deterent is best way to prevent a nuclear war?
Ann Coulter is a terrible human being. That said, there was nothing factually wrong with that article. It isn't misleading at the slightest, and is probably one of the few I've read from her where she was being completely truthful.
As to your question, M.A.D. helped alleviate a lot of the risk of a nuclear war, yes. However, I don't know if that's an accurate comparison. Best to just look at the firearm rights debate as its own issue.
|
Australia has very constrictive gun controls and their shooting rate is also very low.. Personally I think that we should have very strict gun control laws, as these kind of events are occurring way too often in my opinion.
|
On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead.
People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why...
|
United States24756 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:02 ILuMiNaTe wrote:
Australia has very constrictive gun controls and their shooting rate is also very low.. Personally I think that we should have very strict gun control laws, as these kind of events are occurring way too often in my opinion.
Haha, there would be no need for this thread if it was so easy as this. First, gun laws are not some spectrum where you can easily pick a value of strictness... it's a complicated issue. Second, the connection between changes in gun laws for a given country and changes in gun crime is complicated. Changing laws won't eliminate demand, the same way they didn't for the prohibition of alcohol... and look at the failure that is the war on drugs in the USA. There are also many many guns in the USA, and there is no easy way to get rid of them all even if new laws were passed. Right now there are like 15 guns in the house I am in.
Of course, none of them have ever been used to target people outside of military conflict (some are military surplus).
|
On December 15 2012 11:55 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:53 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:51 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:48 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:31 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 11:28 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:23 Nagano wrote: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. No, no it doesn't. It does, however, explicitly state that we keep the right available to every citizen qualified for it. There are many restrictions as to who can purchase what type of weapon, varying state to state. The man who shot up the school today had unlocked access to his mother's firearms. According to news sources he was also mentally unstable, autistic, and had personality disorders. The logical conclusion here is to not abandon founding principles but to look at how this man fell through the cracks. Well for me the first part shows the intend that the Arms should be used to organize to defend the security of the free state. This job was taken by real Militias until 1905. Now you have so called militias who paint their rifle in Hello Kitty style and meet at the weekend to fire some bullets into the wilderness. I thought the 2nd amendment just said: Weapons for everyone but upon seeing the exact wording in the context of the defensive system of the US at that time I do believe it is a relict of the past which lost its validity. Because strictly speaking also the right to own anti tank/aircraft/ship missiles could be justified with the defense of the nation. But hey, even judges at the supreme court disagree with me so who cares You're right, Supreme Court judges do disagree with you. Sure but why not anti aircraft missiles for everyone? I need to defend the states!! 9/11!!!?? When you're ready to come back down to reason let me know.
Oh I am dead serious. Modern warfare relies heavily on aircraft superiority. Thus to properly defend the US every well organized Militia needs gta missiles.
|
On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why...
Because people dont like logic in here
|
On December 15 2012 12:02 ILuMiNaTe wrote:
Australia has very constrictive gun controls and their shooting rate is also very low.. Personally I think that we should have very strict gun control laws, as these kind of events are occurring way too often in my opinion.
Canada's laws are quite strict as well. But they were also instituted in the 70's.
What's unfortunate about the US' situation is the proliferation of guns in their country. There's so many guns in the US that I do feel, reluctantly, that there is merit to the argument that gun ownership in the US deters/prevents crime, as well as enables it.
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
|
On December 15 2012 11:58 nemo14 wrote:
then again, you'd have to deal with the random arguments that end with a bar brawl or etc. having the potential to escalate into the basement scene from inglourious basterds. so that's not great.
Well, technically, if we're discussing law-abiding carry vs illegal, at least in Texas, even with a CHL, there's a zero tolerance policy on drinking and carrying. My friends literally have to either leave it at home or remove the bolt if they're going to drink.
That's not like the drink and drive limit, that's zero tolerance.
Guns and booze don't mix. Damn straight.
|
United States24756 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:05 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 11:57 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The only thing I will ever say in any of these gun debate topics ever again....
America Today: over 20 people shot, over 20 people dead.
China Today: over 20 people stabbed, no one dead. People don't want to think/talk about examples like this. Not sure why... Because people dont like logic in here
I won't speak for these people you are referring to, but I will point out that interpreting statistics like those is actually very complicated. Furthermore, planning a course of action, even in light of seemingly illuminating statistics such as those, is very complicated. It's not a matter of "if only the other side was able to understand fourth grade logic."
|
Sadly having any sort of weapon will always be a double edged sword, it can endanger others or it can protect one-self. It also depends on the person who possess the weapon and the circumstances that they are placed in. War, home intruder, crazies, general hunting, shooting gallery etc.
Anything that you can hold in your hand has that potential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
