|
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 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help.
I highly doubt that anywhere guns are as easily obtained as drugs considering they're both illegal.
edit:
And about the gun-knife subject I would like to mention that it probably takes a lot more courage(?) to kill someone with a knife.
|
If i lived in a country/area where a feeling of safety and security couldn't be achieved without the possession of a firearm, i probably would choose to not live there.
|
On December 15 2012 19:12 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help. I couldn't agree more. Guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is the people, not the guns.
The fifference lies in the severity of the outcome of when it first happens.
|
On December 15 2012 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help.
The demographic that goes on tragic shooting sprees are the people with mental health problems that go untreated is different from the general scumbag criminal who can obtain a gun, control laws or no control laws. Not that that isn't a problem that needs serious fixing itself.
|
In my point of view, it is both OK for people to own guns or not.
If there is one common who have gun, others should have guns too.
If no one owns guns, no guns for all.
If there is something like shooting at kids, we need to forbid the risky people to own guns or any weapons.
|
On December 15 2012 19:12 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help. I couldn't agree more. Guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is the people, not the guns.
The thing is that gun or other kind of weapons gives bad people more chance to kill other people if it is easily obtained. Sure, the root of problem is the people but many times that can be this kind of problem can be prevented by not giving the right tool to those people in the first place.
You can argue that people will find a gun eventually, but if the gun is not easily obtained and have to go through a black market, then the price would go up quite significantly, and that would deter many from obtaining one, unless they are in the crime organization, which is a different problem. And there is also many times that people kill other people while drunk just because they have guns with them.
It's not black and white stuff. Gun control might not solve all the related problems, but it does reduce the probability or severity of the crime in many cases. I don't understand how control or testing or background check people who buy guns is a limited of freedom at all. Rather, isn't it a freedom to live without fear that there might be people without enough qualification that own a firearm and can harm you?
|
On December 15 2012 11:47 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 11:40 YumYumGranola wrote:On December 15 2012 11:27 Nagano wrote: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. I have no problem with firearms that could be used for practical purposes as I stated. Perhaps you could provide a legitimate or practical reason why somebody would want a handgun that doesn't stem from a desire for a sense of power or a misguided belief that they are making people around them safer by carrying these weapons. I dont care if the owners are middle aged with careers. Lots of people in that category try to fill insecurities with objects like cars etc. and I dot see guns being any different. Guns are for killing people, period, get another hobby. You have to respect the weapon, and I don't believe it's possible to respect it while treating it like a toy. Again, don't think we should ban assault weapons, we should treat them like hummers and mercilessly call owners out for being dbags. that way the next time some sorry insecure fuck who thinks they need a lethal weapon to provide a sense of self with will reconsider and just buy a car they can't afford instead. That's quite the judgment on people you don't know. Maybe that's just how you personally feel instead of what you think to be an accurate description of those people? "sense of power, misguided, dbags, sorry insecure fuck". I'm sorry I can't take this post seriously. Get help.
Give me a fucking break, do you disagree? Say so and state why so we can discuss. I base my opinion on assault weapon owners on past experience and my own interpretation of what weapon respect means. And I don't see any reason to own an assault weapon that isn't inherently pathetic. Give me a legit reason if you disagree otherwise stfu.
|
Pro gun people should just suck it up and say we dont care if some people die, we like our guns and that's that.
Arguments like it's written on a paper that i can own guns and the paper is also always right, that knife wielding people (presumably ninjas) can wreak the same amount of havok with little to no trouble as they would with guns or that a militia is absolutely needed in this day and age in a country like the USA to preserve democracy are just laughable.
The one serious argument is self-protection against gun-wielding criminals but the downside is just too much (most of the rest of the world takes this viewpoint insofar gun control laws are concerned).
|
On December 15 2012 19:12 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help. I couldn't agree more. Guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is the people, not the guns.
Okay... so the people are irresponsible with a certain substance or tool. Guess what we normally do in those circumstances? We restrict access to them.
Crazy idea I know. You don't allow anybody to trespass on a construction site because they might be irresponsible or don't understand the perils and get hurt, even though it's perfectly possible for someone who knows the construction industry to walk through the whole site a hundred times over trespassing while not getting hurt. You keep power tools out of the reach of toddlers and infants. You keep alcohol and cigarettes away from minors and people with health hazards. What if most people simply are not capable of being responsible with a weapon? What if that demographic is literally everyone who hasn't received military / police training? These are all sensible logical conclusions, hence why in the vast majority of cases civilians with out military training / constant supervision / participating in active warfare aren't allowed to use guns or own them.
|
On December 15 2012 19:32 Taguchi wrote:
Pro gun people should just suck it up and say we dont care if some people die, we like our guns and that's that.
Arguments like it's written on a paper that i can own guns and the paper is also always right, that knife wielding people (presumably ninjas) can wreak the same amount of havok with little to no trouble as they would with guns or that a militia is absolutely needed in this day and age in a country like the USA to preserve democracy are just laughable.
The one serious argument is self-protection against gun-wielding criminals but the downside is just too much (most of the rest of the world takes this viewpoint insofar gun control laws are concerned).
When the piece of paper that says Americans are allowed to carry guns was written, guns had to be reloaded after each shot which would take like 30 seconds. That is why back then it was impossible to do a mass murder alone with a gun, it was only possible with blades. Gun was desinged be used in warfare and hunting only.
|
On December 15 2012 19:16 ander wrote:
If i lived in a country/area where a feeling of safety and security couldn't be achieved without the possession of a firearm, i probably would choose to not live there.
Interesting choice of words.
I live in a country where people feel perfectly safe without weapons and don't feel the need for so called protection.
The problem is you assume that having a weapon makes you safer. It obviously makes you feel safer but that isn't the same thing as you actually being safer.
And if you aren't actually safer then why would you have something that gives you a false sense of security?
|
On December 15 2012 14:31 delarien123 wrote:
Banning and limiting guns is the last thing we want to do. Guns keep the government from becoming a dictatorship. If everyone has a gun in the United States do you really think the government would try and oppress us? It sucks that people get hurt more, but it is far better to live with the fear of dying by guns than to live my life being oppressed by the government. The very real threat that any government can become a dictatorship will always be there. Just because we live in the USA does not mean it is not a real threat.
Let's say for a second that I agree with you,
I buy a nice gun, very heavy and big like my SUV ...I might have something to compens... anyway that's not the point.
My lovely french government decides to pass an outrageous law that I disagree with as a citizen.
Let's say for the sake of this demonstration that I am extremely fervent christian for example,
and that I feel that homosexual union is going to send our country into chaos and darkness along with the new ecological taxes on people owning SUV.
And I feel really oppressed ! But my fellow french citizens are way too left sided for me, I mean they won't let me marry my cousin, but they let gays fuck and hold hands on the holy land of FRANCE. Dude : this guy is a dictator on my very hypothetical opinion!
![[image loading]](http://www.slate.fr/sites/default/files/imagecache/blognews-picture/hollande-fevrier2012francois_hollande_sur_le_plateau_de_parole_de_candidat_sur_tf1_en_fevrier_2012._reutersfred_dufourpool.jpg)
Then by following your reasoning, I, as a citizen, should rise against my government, and go in the street to shoot random gays and cops to prove my point and resist the oppression?
Would it be ok ? As long as I fight for my freedom to fuck my cousin, protect this land of god and drive my SUV around without paying taxes ??
|
Also what do pro-gun people have to say about the fact that the killer used a goddamn military grade assault rifle?
It's one thing to want to keep the right to own a handgun to defend yourself from an intruder, but an assault rifle? You're never going to face a zombie assault on your house, you don't need a weapon whose primary function is to mow down groups of human beings.
The fact that when you type the name of the gun in Google the fifth link is one to walmart to buy the gun is disgusting.
|
On December 15 2012 19:42 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:32 Taguchi wrote:
Pro gun people should just suck it up and say we dont care if some people die, we like our guns and that's that.
Arguments like it's written on a paper that i can own guns and the paper is also always right, that knife wielding people (presumably ninjas) can wreak the same amount of havok with little to no trouble as they would with guns or that a militia is absolutely needed in this day and age in a country like the USA to preserve democracy are just laughable.
The one serious argument is self-protection against gun-wielding criminals but the downside is just too much (most of the rest of the world takes this viewpoint insofar gun control laws are concerned). When the piece of paper that says Americans are allowed to carry guns was written, guns had to be reloaded after each shot which would take like 30 seconds. That is why back then it was impossible to do a mass murder alone with a gun, it was only possible with blades. Gun was desinged be used in warfare and hunting only.
Yes thats the point, just because it says so on the constitution doesnt mean its right.
At least religious people can argue that their writings are divine thus they are unfallible, constitutionalists cant even fall back on that (flimsy as it is) argument.
|
On December 15 2012 19:43 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:16 ander wrote:
If i lived in a country/area where a feeling of safety and security couldn't be achieved without the possession of a firearm, i probably would choose to not live there. Interesting choice of words. I live in a country where people feel perfectly safe without weapons and don't feel the need for so called protection. The problem is you assume that having a weapon makes you safer. It obviously makes you feel safer but that isn't the same thing as you actually being safer. And if you aren't actually safer then why would you have something that gives you a false sense of security?
Hm english isn'tmy first language but i was pretty sure his sentences meant he is clearly against weapons :p
|
On December 15 2012 19:37 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:12 ReachTheSky wrote:On December 15 2012 17:36 NotAPro wrote:
People who do shit like this will find a way to access guns despite the laws/regulations. Trying to stop gun crime by making guns illegal is the same as trying to stop people from doing drugs by making them illegal (that doesn't work). If you want to reduce the number of psychopaths going on killing sprees you have to reduce the number of psychopaths via improved mental health care systems. The people who do shit like this are sick and need help. I couldn't agree more. Guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is the people, not the guns. Okay... so the people are irresponsible with a certain substance or tool. Guess what we normally do in those circumstances? We restrict access to them. Crazy idea I know. You don't allow anybody to trespass on a construction site because they might be irresponsible or don't understand the perils and get hurt, even though it's perfectly possible for someone who knows the construction industry to walk through the whole site a hundred times over trespassing while not getting hurt. You keep power tools out of the reach of toddlers and infants. You keep alcohol and cigarettes away from minors and people with health hazards. What if most people simply are not capable of being responsible with a weapon? What if that demographic is literally everyone who hasn't received military / police training? These are all sensible logical conclusions, hence why in the vast majority of cases civilians with out military training / constant supervision / participating in active warfare aren't allowed to use guns or own them.
haleluja for this post, i wanted to post something similar like this, but i will just highlight it again.
In theory people could all walk around with guns, be free and liberal and there would be no extra casualties.
The practical downside is the fact that when people walk around with guns, people get shot.
(I remember the incident this year, where a father killed his own son in his backyard, because he thought he was a burglar)
This is just an incident (and not even an accident, he really wanted to shoot him) but would be less dramatic with a kitchen knife or with an iron pole.
Another thing with guns, is the fact you can't make a mistake. People are sensitive beings, who react on impulse (sometimes).
There is no room for some good old fashioned human reflexes when everybody (also every retard) walks around with guns.
|
No gun law fits for many countries, but certainly not the U.S. There is no way for this country to turn back and withdraw all the firearms. The U.S. is on a path that it needs to continue allowing gun ownership. It's a violent culture to live in and the best way to keep crazies away from your home is to let they know that you have a gun under your bed. I live in Stockton, California and would hear gun shots at 2am a few times a week with multiple shots each time. My house was broken in twice during the last 10 years. Now I'm living in a safer part of the city but keep hearing neighbors' homes being broken in. We just had a neighbor meeting last month because of this problem. But, there's nothing you would do.
|
|
|
If you look at the amount of guns out there in the US, you can be pretty sure that attempted "gun control" or additional laws regulating them won't have much effect. I hold the general belief that it works in other countries due to it being very hard to get hold of a gun (Which is unfathomable for the US at this time).
I mean sure, if you could magically make all the guns vanish from everyone but law enforcement at exactly the same time, then there would be less of a problem. However, declaring some kind of reduction in a society where guns are so prevalent would probably just leave innocents without a method to defend themselves.
That and their constitution, which obviously would not allow it.
That being said, I feel like I'm reading about shootings every other week and can't help but consider that something is fundamentally wrong if that happens in a civilized society. If gun control will not help, then something else has to be considered.
|
By an FBI study, 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns. This tells me that guns make it easier for you to kill, however they are not the problem, if it were, the ratio would be at about ~98%.
Sure, in other countries there are not many murderers caused by gun usage, but that didn't stop some crazy guy kill a friend of a friend with a gun here, where guns are illegal.
I don't understand the issue you are debating... Guns or no guns ?..... Guns are irrelevant, they just make killing easier, but it still occurs anyways, you should be concern about education, and people who get born in very poor neighbourhoods that have no perspective in life. Those school shooting should probably not be completely stopped if you have tight gun regulation, a crazy guy can easily engineer bombs powerful enough to kill a lot of people. Also, people will kill people, that's why they are called psychopaths...It's an actual disease...
Also the argument is ridiculuos. In one simple sentence, you can debunk this debate: People with no bad intention should not have the right to carry a defense weapon, in a country where there are tons of guns, and where crazy people can most likely get a gun.
Should we live in a world with no guns, I would vote yes...But since they are here and people make good money of it and it won't stop....
Also one more thing I don't understand; why people blame the NRA ? Why don't people blame the people who gave weapon to a random guy ? I don't know much about gun control, but I would figure, a gun would be given to a guy with proper psychological testing. As far as I would think of it, the ones who sold the weapon to the lunatic should at least loose his right with guns or even get in jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
