|
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 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents.
The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her.
|
On December 15 2012 12:25 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote: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." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die. If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory. Knives are non-lethal, according to his post. At best, it takes more time to deal the same damage. But is that what this discussion has come down to? How many extra seconds it takes to kill as many children? If the firearms rights debate has come to this then you know it's not a good argument.
I wouldn't say that my post concluded that knives were non-lethal. But of the two, guns and knives, which would you say allows a man to kill more people in a shorter amount of time with greater ease and with less threat to himself?
Personally, I feel that the situation in our country is a complicated one, with so many guns and such a culture we cannot easily make changes, and any changes made would take decades to really have any effect. However, instituting new laws to help improve gun control would benefit this country, but only at a national level.
|
On December 15 2012 12:30 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:23 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:13 Destro wrote:
8: Americans must follow the commands of those really old guys in funny wigs who died hundreds of years ago, and invoke their RIGHT to give stupid people firearms.
9: this whole fucking thing is stupid. Just as I argue for the rest of the constitutional amendments, including freedom of speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and on. If you think referring to them as really old guys in funny wigs helps your cause, then that shows how much respect you have for principles of modern western societies. Fun fact those are not american invented ideals. Also fun fact some of those same guys kept human beings as slaves. great principles. And lets not be silly, American society is far from modern.
They are not invented by Americans. I never implied that did I? Does that mean we should abandon some of them, or? I don't get the point of this post.
You're just namecalling.
|
On December 15 2012 12:34 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:25 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote: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." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die. If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory. Knives are non-lethal, according to his post. At best, it takes more time to deal the same damage. But is that what this discussion has come down to? How many extra seconds it takes to kill as many children? If the firearms rights debate has come to this then you know it's not a good argument. I wouldn't say that my post concluded that knives were non-lethal. But of the two, guns and knives, which would you say allows a man to kill more people in a shorter amount of time with greater ease and with less threat to himself? Personally, I feel that the situation in our country is a complicated one, with so many guns and such a culture we cannot easily make changes, and any changes made would take decades to really have any effect. However, instituting new laws to help improve gun control would benefit this country, but only at a national level.
Yeah I don't like his argument, if someone came and attacked a group of people with a knife, the other people would most likely have the tools in which they could defend themselves. If someone approaches a group with a gun, the group can't do anything at all.
|
Also relevant to point out that in China, with a very large population and "a string of copycat knife attacks" on school children, very few have died. Clearly it's pretty hard to kill a bunch of people with a knife, compared to a handgun.
"In 2010, nearly 20 children were killed and 50 wounded in a string of copycat incidents around central China. China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes."
|
On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her.
Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be.
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:33 magicmUnky wrote:
Analogies can't be drawn against the drug argument because of the different nature of the products. I mean, there are plenty of other things that are illegal, that people might want, that they can't get (from the silly: military explosives, to the creepy: top notch spying equipment).
Some counter-arguments to gun control make it sound like every kid who deals weed is gonna start carrying automatic weapons too? It just doesn't make sense.
Until there are effective gun control systems in place, people are going to pick up easily accessible, military weapons and turn them on their fellow citizens.
I think it's a question of demand. The demand for guns in the USA won't change, or at least not quickly, which changing gun legislation.
After alcohol prohibition started in the 20s, there was still a massive demand for alcohol. The prohibition just didn't work.
It's the same thing with my illegal drugs. Making them illegal hasn't dealt with reducing the demand, whereas programs that have worked towards reducing demand have been more helpful overall.
Guns need to be looked at the same way: how can we reduce demand? The stricter gun legislation can follow if the demand is actually reduced. This is why it's a trickier issue than most people give it credit for. It's easy for someone who lives in a country with low demand for guns to call for stricter gun laws like they have, but those gun laws only work because there is low demand in that country.
And having a demand for guns, when used properly for target shooting or hunting, is not inherently wrong.
Lastly, what about the tremendous supply of guns? What's the plan for this? When before has a country had so many guns per-capita, and then rapidly switched to a near gun-less society where gun crime was greatly reduced? It's yet again a tricky issue.
|
On December 15 2012 12:37 lonelyPotato wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:34 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:25 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote: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." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die. If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory. Knives are non-lethal, according to his post. At best, it takes more time to deal the same damage. But is that what this discussion has come down to? How many extra seconds it takes to kill as many children? If the firearms rights debate has come to this then you know it's not a good argument. I wouldn't say that my post concluded that knives were non-lethal. But of the two, guns and knives, which would you say allows a man to kill more people in a shorter amount of time with greater ease and with less threat to himself? Personally, I feel that the situation in our country is a complicated one, with so many guns and such a culture we cannot easily make changes, and any changes made would take decades to really have any effect. However, instituting new laws to help improve gun control would benefit this country, but only at a national level. Yeah I don't like his argument, if someone came and attacked a group of people with a knife, the other people would most likely have the tools in which they could defend themselves. If someone approaches a group with a gun, the group can't do anything at all.
Well obviously I wouldn't want a classroom full of children facing a man wielding a knife or gun, but it is easier to take down a man with a knife than one with an assault rifle.
I was just saying it would be nice if we could start implementing policies that are common sense, such as mandatory background checks, or requiring training classes that are held in person, not a quiz you take online (which is only in some states, and for concealed weapon permits.)
|
On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be.
O.o
i have no words...
Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is
or how freaking afraid americans are
|
On December 15 2012 11:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Really? And that's why we have all these mass murders into suicides in the rest of the world huh. Blame it on mindset if you like, you're avoiding the simple fact that with no guns, there is very little to no gun crime (whodathunk)
|
On December 15 2012 12:12 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:06 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 11:55 Nagano wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ignoring the fact that this is a blatant and poorly thought out troll, a militia doesn't need to have the same equipment as a military. A militia would be supplementary, which would mean they wouldn't need the same hardware, because the military hardware would already be on their side. Of course, if they were rebelling against the lawful government anyways and just calling themselves a militia, I don't think the average armed insurgency is excessively concerned about the laws of the regime they're trying to overthrow, as a rule.
So you have a militia who is untrained due to restrictions with
- assault rifles
- machine guns
- mortars
- anti aircraft missiles
- anti tank missiles
Great support of your regular army. But I guess they can be radio operators and commanding
I still fail to see how the laws allows to build a Militia on your own. Unless the regulated somehow safes the day (and defends the free State)
|
On December 15 2012 12:41 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:37 lonelyPotato wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:25 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:13 Saryph wrote:On December 15 2012 12:09 micronesia wrote:On December 15 2012 12:07 Reaps wrote: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." Would you agree it is a good example to look at? Obviously it is just one example, but you have to elementary schools attacked on the same day, one in a country with lots of gun control, the other without gun control. In one, a man with suspected mental problems stabs twenty kids and a teacher with the most dangerous weapon he can easily obtain, a knife, and they all survive. In the other country a man with suspected mental problems shoots twenty kids and teachers with the most dangerous weapons he can easily obtain, firearms, and they all die. If you follow it up with more data, then yes, it can be a helpful component in this discussion, in theory. Knives are non-lethal, according to his post. At best, it takes more time to deal the same damage. But is that what this discussion has come down to? How many extra seconds it takes to kill as many children? If the firearms rights debate has come to this then you know it's not a good argument. I wouldn't say that my post concluded that knives were non-lethal. But of the two, guns and knives, which would you say allows a man to kill more people in a shorter amount of time with greater ease and with less threat to himself? Personally, I feel that the situation in our country is a complicated one, with so many guns and such a culture we cannot easily make changes, and any changes made would take decades to really have any effect. However, instituting new laws to help improve gun control would benefit this country, but only at a national level. Yeah I don't like his argument, if someone came and attacked a group of people with a knife, the other people would most likely have the tools in which they could defend themselves. If someone approaches a group with a gun, the group can't do anything at all. Well obviously I wouldn't want a classroom full of children facing a man wielding a knife or gun, but it is easier to take down a man with a knife than one with an assault rifle. I was just saying it would be nice if we could start implementing policies that are common sense, such as mandatory background checks, or requiring training classes that are held in person, not a quiz you take online (which is only in some states, and for concealed weapon permits.)
It seems to me you're completely derailing the point of the thread, which is asking whether or not we should have a ban on firearms. History and past policies, as well as university and government studies show that bans do not decrease gun violence, in fact it's quite the contrary. I'm not saying I want automatic weapons given to everyone no questions asked, or that I even want automatic weapons. When you say, however, that you would rather face a knife-wielding man than a gun wielding man, of course! Who doesn't? But the solution is as you said, more firm requirements for gun ownership.
The man who was responsible for the shooting today was not a legal gun owner afaik, he stole his mother's firearms, was autistic and had a personality disorder. If anything, the shooting can be indirectly attributable to the mother/teacher who did not lock up her firearms properly, especially since she had a son with a mental condition.
|
Yeah but if the guns are hard to obtain due to licensing and regulation, the demand will drop; it's a disincentive. If there are less guns floating around then why would home-owners want them for personal protection? If gun licenses are expensive then that's just another disincentive.
You're right that there's a huge cultural block but I think that's easier to deal with than it's been made out to be. I can only imagine that arguments like yours will win and that America will continue to be full of gun crime, on top of all the regular crime. I expect to see another psycho shooting up a school in the next year and the world will be thinking, "only in America".
|
United States24569 Posts
On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are
I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA.
|
A thing a lot of people outside the USA don't stop to think of when proposing solutions is that there are a LOT of guns already in circulation, and with very little regulation (many are unregistered.)
Even if you suddenly made guns illegal to sell period (not something I am proposing) you would not solve the problem, or come close to it.
At the same time you have to deal with the issue on a national level, because there is open travel between states, and many states allow you to purchase a gun with no background check or even any notification to the government of the sale.
|
On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are
It's quite the opposite actually. Firearm owners think the least of their firearms. Much like I wouldn't think much of my bow and arrow, or crossbow, or my roommates samurai sword. The people who are most afraid are those who do not own one or have experience with one, and sadly they have the most opposition to it.
The U.S. isn't dangerous and terrible at all, except for a few urban areas, but it does have a strong history with the second amendment, something more people should be educated on. Every few years this happens, a debate always happens where the uninformed crowd wrongly places the blame on guns and not on the crazy guy who decided to kill children.
|
On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be.
Conservative pundit and former Bush speech writer David Frum caught a lot of shit from the right wingers for this tweet today.
"Shooting at CT elementary school. Obviously, we need to lower the age limit for concealed carry so toddlers can defend themselves."
|
On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA.
Thats not what i was going at...
The fact that he finds that not so absurd...
|
Should people be allowed to have sex out of marriage?
As well know sex out of wedlock causes many problems such as AIDS and other STDs, and causes many deaths, even if you are liberal and don't count abortion as murder. AIDS and other STDs can even spread from mother to baby in the womb or at birth. Therefore I think we should require a marriage license in order to engage in any sexual activities, and you must go to your town hall and apply for a permit to marry. We live in a civilized society and casual sex is causing many deaths from STDs, haven't we progressed from our barbaric path of brutal lasciviousness? All other forms of sex should be outlawed completely since they can cause death through the ways mentioned earlier.
How many brothels and sex slaves are there? Is human sexual trafficking ok? Its like being shot multiple times everyday without being able to die. How many child sex slaves are there? (Hint more than have been killed in mass shootings). With these new laws we could shut down prostitution, sex trafficking, and other forms of abuse worldwide that are often worse than death. Its only by allowing people to have sex whenever and with whoever they want, that these problems arise.
AIDS can be spread through needles and its very easy to stab people in a crowd with an infected needle, but lets be real here, that doenst happen much and its much harder than just having casual sex. I mean how many cases of AIDS are from undesired needles versus casual sex? Its obviously much easier to kill with AIDS through casual sex.
I propose we develop government regulated chastity belts with little cameras that can verify if and when people are allowed to engage in sexual relations with their spouse. The camera may or may not be monitored at anytime for the sake of your safety (1984 anyone?). This way no one is ever harmed by the effects of casual sex or other sexual abuses, and remember, its for your protection!
Id like to add this onto every gun restriction bill since guns and non marital sex, are both evils which our civilized progressive culture must get beyond. Im sure everyone against guns will stand with me on this issue!
----------
What is the purpose of guns in America?
+ Show Spoiler +
Also the point of owning guns is to be able to fight off a military, whether it is the US or otherwise (its just a matter of when not if). So in fact, we are less well equipped as US citizens then we need to be. Muskets vs muskets was fair versus the British, but the advancement of military technology means that the militia and civillians must be equally matched. I could see the restriction of military vehicles or AA rockets (only for planes, AA vs helicopters is debatable) but I think RPGs, rockets, explosives, land mines, drones, bullet making machines, etc should be legal. A population doesn't have to be equally armed but with guerilla tactics the military presence needs to be 10x as strong, which is why fighting in arab countries is difficult, which ironically, every man woman and child in afghan has the liberty to own an AK-47. And AA rockets vs helicopters was a major help for the Afghans to kick out the soviets.
So if anything gun laws are way too strict, although if the liberals would give us rockets and the rest I think it would be fair to make handguns illegal, since those are mainly used in crime because they are cheap and stealthy. Whens the last time you saw someone mug someone with an rpg? Hey throw me your wallet, and don't step within 20ft of me or Ill shoot!
I think liberals are just mad that even if they took over the US and made it into a communist dictatorship the battle against freedom would only have started. And for you EU people, did you forget about Hitler and Stalin?
|
On December 15 2012 12:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:42 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:39 Nagano wrote:On December 15 2012 12:34 Destro wrote:On December 15 2012 12:28 NET wrote:
Will just reiterate a good point.
Illegal drugs are illegal. The people that want them will still get it. The same goes for weapons.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own and carry a gun, then I believe they should be able to, of course after a background check and such. If they make it illegal it will be sheep to the slaughter when a madman, who will obtain a weapon whether it be illegal or not wants to go on a rampage.
Imagine if the teacher was armed, at least then they would have stood a fair chance. We should not stand behind false flags when it comes to our(USA's) freedoms.
A funny meme I saw said, "So making guns illegal will take them off the street? We should make meth and heroin illegal too."
My 2 cents. The mother of the killer was infact, a teacher at the school. those were in fact, her weapons (at least registered in her name).. that also killed her. Schools are firearm free zones. She wasn't allowed to have them on the premises. So you are not actually refuting his point that having a firearm there would have helped. It would have. This is in Israel (http://i.imgur.com/Ts1So.jpg). Do I advocate what is in that particular picture? No. Maybe locked in a safe in the closet. But it is not as absurd as you imagine it to be. O.o i have no words... Either i don`t understand just how terrible and dangerous the USA is or how freaking afraid americans are I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, but Israel is not in the USA.
Media terrorism. Welcome to the USA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
