|
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 16 2012 17:44 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene. I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked.
It's a shame that we can't have confidence in our rights to defend ourselves, and that very hesitation could cost us or our family our lives. I agree with your post completely, are you sure you're really a bleeding heart liberal ? Have you missed some meetings lately, because you seem reasonable.
|
On December 16 2012 17:38 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem. It's the general trend of stupidity of people who advocate gun violence saying "If we take guns away, they'll be less crime! I mean look at Japan/Norway/insert nation with strict gun control here!" Gun control doesn't lower violent crime. The fact of the matter is, those nations have much lower rates of crime than America as is (ie. even removing all gun-related crime, America would still have a crime rate about 2-3x higher than Japan's). It doesn't matter if you legalized firearms there or not, the crime rate wouldn't increase drastically. Banning guns does nothing to cut down violent crime if you don't target the root of the problem (gangs, drug dealers, etc.)
Gun control does lower gun deaths however.
|
On December 16 2012 17:35 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? You had me at "never". Do you feel at all guilty of using the word "logic" ? Keldrath wrote:
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? Wonder why you selectively ended that bolded portion right up to, but not including, the word unless.
You said never. As I mentioned earlier in this thread my cousin's fiance (at the time) was nearly beat to death during a mugging. She gave them the money and never resisted. They still almost killed her and she spend several weeks in the hospital. Therefore, you shouldn't use "never". It happens. The motivations of muggers aren't black and white.
|
On December 16 2012 17:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:44 crms wrote:On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene. I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked. It's a shame that we can't have confidence in our rights to defend ourselves, and that very hesitation could cost us or our family our lives. I agree with your post completely, are you sure you're really a bleeding heart liberal ? Have you missed some meetings lately, because you seem reasonable.
eh southern liberal here. we like our guns just as much as anyone else.
|
On December 16 2012 17:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:50 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:44 crms wrote:On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene. I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked. It's a shame that we can't have confidence in our rights to defend ourselves, and that very hesitation could cost us or our family our lives. I agree with your post completely, are you sure you're really a bleeding heart liberal ? Have you missed some meetings lately, because you seem reasonable. eh southern liberal here. we like our guns just as much as anyone else.
No shit, you have made that pretty clear lol.
|
On December 16 2012 17:52 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:35 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 16:36 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 16:27 TMD wrote:
@Keldrath
Whatever. My first response was to your post that included abortion for whatever off-topic reason. From there, I can partly see your point of view of criminals-as-people-too as watching any TV cops show pisses me off when the suspects are mistreated when there currently is no conviction. (see the B.C. story from a while ago where a cop shot a suspect in the head from behind, saying he was threatening, and the cop got let off.) That argument is WHOLLY off-topic. (Discussing police as reactionary rather than preventative.)
My original statement was to find out if personal protection via guns was needed, (or that was my intent) and now: Wouldn't a society where everyone held guns lead to borderline lawlessness a la wild west where you settle personal disputes with a stand-off? Maybe that question is stupid.. Wouldn't that give criminals equal right to carry a gun (for malicious purposes) and possibly use them before the citizens have the chance to defend? That is if the criminal has no priors and is allowed to own.
((I can't help but think this recent rash of public violence could lead to a totalitarian police-state,, look at the random hospital shooting that took place earlier today (15th). That is a different discussion thread, yet linked to the topic of gun control in general.))
Canada spent millions on a gun registry program a few years ago and it failed. Pure gun control is, for sure, difficult, but maybe more regulations need to be in place. Registry obviously fails because not everyone with hunting rifles/heirlooms is willing to participate/register.
(after reading current posts)
"mugging you with a knife doesnt logically follow to ' gonna kill you' "
a threat is a threat is a threat, on MY life. with a KILLING DEVICE. Now it doesn't matter what you have to say or think, this is a lol exercise for you and I'm sorry that I've wasted time on your "thoughts". NEXT He's assuming that just because the guy has a knife he's going to use it to kill you, That does not logically follow, what logically follows is this guy is poor, hes desperate, he needs some money, he's trying to intimidate you with a knife to get your wallet, you give it to him, thats the end of it. it's a mugging not a homicide. It never ends up being a homicide unless the person attacks the man with the knife, there is if ever, extremely extremely rare, a situation where a person mugging you is mugging you because he wants to kill you. It does not logically follow whatsoever. If you think that the first thing you should do is whip out a gun and start shooting to kill, not just him but most likely incompetently hitting innocent bystanders as well, then you disagree with me. However if you think it should be dealt with peacefully first, and only escalated if the person actually gives hints he has intentions to kill you anyways, then you agree with me. Which is it? are you a shoot first ask questions later kind of guy? or are you willing to give it a chance to be resolved without anyone being harmed? You had me at "never". Do you feel at all guilty of using the word "logic" ? Keldrath wrote:
Because he might just be desperate enough to do it if you dont comply.
Big deal, its a wallet, I can get another one. It's not worth endangering my life over or anyone elses.
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? Wonder why you selectively ended that bolded portion right up to, but not including, the word unless. You said never. As I mentioned earlier in this thread my cousin's fiance (at the time) was nearly beat to death during a mugging. She gave them the money and never resisted. They still almost killed her and she spend several weeks in the hospital. Therefore, you shouldn't use "never". It happens. The motivations of muggers aren't black and white.
I even said in the post that kind of situation is extremely extremely rare. so rare in fact you might as well say it doesn't happen, because it happens so little. And regardless they didn't kill her, despite her compliance.
|
On December 16 2012 17:44 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene. I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked.
This is exactly how I feel. There is a boundary that is crossed when someone threatens your life or a loved ones life.
|
On December 16 2012 17:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:44 crms wrote:On December 16 2012 17:40 Kaitlin wrote:On December 16 2012 17:33 ChaiNs wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Kaitlin wrote:
Another post full of fail. One strand of thread from that wallet, or even that little bit of urine that occasionally misses the toilet bowl is worth more than the life of someone who threatens an innocent person with a knife. Their life is damned sure not worth the cost of the ammunition it takes to end their miserable existence, which is what, a dime ? While I agree that threatening an innocent with a knife is wrong and certainly not ideal, I disagree with you on the whole. You shouldn't ignore someone's entire human experience and the circumstances that have brought them to this choice. There are examples you can pull where there is no justification or slack to be given for a violent assailant's actions. But a human life is a human life, so I thought I should give you a counterpoint. I appreciate your counterpoint and perspective. I could care less about the "human experience" and the "circumstances that have brought" a knife wielding assailant to their demise. My only concern is who is going to clean up the street after they are removed from the scene. I'm a huge bleeding heart liberal and fully understand the actions and consequences that lead certain people to crime are tragic. Having said that, the only thing that would concern me if a knife wielding criminal tried to assault me or my family would be 'will i go to jail after I kill him?' I value human life and realize my wallet or money isn't worth it but there is a switch that goes off in my head and anyone who even threatened my families life brandishing a weapon would be killed and I would feel no regret. I guess that's heartless but if you entire my home uninvited with a weapon, you're fucked. It's a shame that we can't have confidence in our rights to defend ourselves, and that very hesitation could cost us or our family our lives. I agree with your post completely, are you sure you're really a bleeding heart liberal ? Have you missed some meetings lately, because you seem reasonable.
Having understood the both of you I believe you're saying in-situation you wouldn't be concerned with the humanity of the attacker? If so, I'd agree. However, do you apply this same logic out-of-situation? Personally, I believe that is what law-making/enforcement is about; not being caught in the midst of the situation but reasoning it out logically and creating a governing rule or rules such that when the time comes and all ARE in-situation and have no time/will to reason, the combination of instinct and law will make for the safest, best outcome.
So, do you mean to defend the point you've (rightly, I think) made not just when pre-supposing you are actually "being mugged/attacked"??
|
On December 16 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:36 Cloud9157 wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 17:26 Cloud9157 wrote:
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Really think the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. They don't give a damn that things like the shooting in Connecticut happen, they just want to shoot their guns. Maybe this will open the eyes to the rest of the states and allow them to reconsider their gun laws.
I'll never want guns removed from your homes, but I also don't want them on the same streets that I walk on. This isn't the wild west anymore, where having a gun on you in public made sense. Chicago's actual problem is gangs, not gun rights. If you don't believe me, find out what percentage of those murders are committed by the actual registered owner of the gun. I understand the desire to ban guns in a city like that, but it's not going to actually solve the problem. I fully believe you because its true. These guys do get their weapons mostly through illegal means/stealing, but still, you want them to be allowed to freely carry those same weapons in public, albeit concealed? No thanks. Rather than let everyone carry guns in the street, I'd rather no one have them but the police. Obviously that wont happen, but I can pretty much tell the situation of this city would get worse if they can carry them around. Do you honestly believe passing a law is going to stop criminals from carrying their weapons? That's foolish.
You definitely missed the "Obviously that wont happen" part my post.
On December 16 2012 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +
Resident of Illinois, the only state in the US that still bans concealed carry. Truly hope we take the Appellate Court's decision to the Supreme Court. Maybe it will be put to a vote amongst the people in this state, but either way, I hope it gets shot down. The number of sad stories I hear about people getting shot in the city of Chicago makes my heart sink sometimes, especially when I just hear of little kids getting shot by stray bullets. If guns are allowed to basically run rampant, I don't even want to think about how much worse this city would get.
Gun crime is high in Chicago because of demographics and gangster rap culture that is rampant amongst certain demographics.It's time you stopped putting blame at the feet of the NRA and started seeing where the real problems are.
The NRA basically seeks to empower these criminals by allowing them to freely carry a firearm, regardless of how it is obtained, in public. I know they want everyone to have the right for concealed carry, but allowing these criminals to conceal weapons in public legally will make this city worse.
|
Well America's problem is that it had a retarded weapon law for such a long time that it is hard for them to change it now when they have "x" amount of million weapons in circulation. America dug a very deep hole and when it starts to get gloomy down there they realized that the surface is far away. Of course you "need a weapon" if every nut bag can get hold off a full automatic rifle.
One of several disadvantages with Americas position. That weapons require licenses also matter less when there are so many weapons around is another one. If the number of places with fire arms is extremely high it obviously becomes a lot easier to break/walk in to an area were you can steal fire arms compared to what it would be in for instance Japan or Sweden.
I mean sure if you have connection within criminal organizations in Sweden you probably can find guns, not so sure about rifles that is pretty rare. But, just because you hate society, have a mental disorder or is in general very lonely does it not mean that you have connections within criminal organizations so that becomes an limiting factor. Another thing is that when weapons are rare they become expensive, so you might not simply be able to afford it.
But as I said I think it will take long time before a change in America would take effect. They need to start somewhere, although I imagine it will take several decays before America would have a meaningful decline.
P.S: I am a Dragoon now ^.^
|
It is not a retarded weapon law. In fact, the weapon laws in the U.S. are part of what makes it such a strong nation. On top of our massive defense funding, the huge amount of citizen's who own guns makes it next to impossible to try and invade. It is next to impossible to take over a country when everyone in it is armed and patriotic. A massive standing militia that is free of cost.
|
On December 16 2012 20:08 gereth86 wrote:
It is not a retarded weapon law. In fact, the weapon laws in the U.S. are part of what makes it such a strong nation. On top of our massive defense funding, the huge amount of citizen's who own guns makes it next to impossible to try and invade. It is next to impossible to take over a country when everyone in it is armed and patriotic. A massive standing militia that is free of cost.
Well, last time anyone tried to "invade" Sweden was in 1530, that was about 250 years before US existed. We are doing fine so far, we must be very lucky.
And how on earth would in today's world invade america? We live in a global economy, if US becomes invaded the world economy will go into a rapid decline. That is the country that invade America will regardless of the outcome will suffer economically, as everyone is part of the global economy. That is probably only the first step as well as many countries would most likely engage in trade embargoes against a country that invaded US. '
That being beside the fact that you started a war against the largest military force on earth.
|
On December 16 2012 19:55 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well America's problem is that had a retarded weapon law for such a long time that it is hard for them to change it now when they have x amount of million weapons in circulation.
America dug a very deep hole and when it starts to get gloomy down there they realized that the surface is far away. Of course you "need a weapon" if every nut bag can get hold off a full automatic rifle.
That weapons require licenses also matter less when there are so many weapons around. If the number of place with arms is 100 times higher it obviously becomes a lot easier to break/walk in to an area were you can steal fire arms.
America would however need to start somewhere, although I imagine it will take several decays for America to start to have a meaningful decline.
P.S: I am a Dragoon now ^.^
America's problem is not their "retarded" weapon law. America's problem is that it's citizens are too retarded to properly handle guns.
Here's the thing: I'm a fairly law abiding citizen in my country, that means that by default I do not have access to a weapon. However, if someone were planning on robbing me or even murdering me, then those plans break the law much "harder" than illegally possessing a weapon.
What does that mean? That means that illegal weapon possession only means something in cases where people do not want to commit a crime more serious than the illegal weapon possession itself. We're talking something like, illegal hunting of animals.
You suggest gun control to prevent illegal hunting activities? I can't think of any other use for what is considered an illegal weapon that isn't waaaaaaay more criminal than actually owning the weapon.
Weapons, like drugs, should not be banned. Yes there should be some regulation, to prevent people who have no idea what they're doing to get their hands on these things such as the mentally disabled or children.
The main factor is education, you educate your citizens so they are able to make the choice for themselves. Because like I've mentioned before, if you plan on buying a gun at the local walmart to murder someone then you probably wouldn't have much moral issue with buying a gun illegally either.
I would point to for example Switzerland (Or Austria, I always mix em up) where owning a loaded gun is legal, yet this country has some of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Hell, as a criminal I'd be a lot more afraid of for example robbing people if the odds were decent that the person I'm robbing can whip out a gun.
People always point their finger at the US and say: "Look, that's why guns need to be banned" when that in fact doesn't make sense. It's the people, not the guns.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 16 2012 19:55 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well America's problem is that it had a retarded weapon law for such a long time that it is hard for them to change it now when they have "x" amount of million weapons in circulation. America dug a very deep hole and when it starts to get gloomy down there they realized that the surface is far away. Of course you "need a weapon" if every nut bag can get hold off a full automatic rifle.
One of several disadvantages with Americas position. That weapons require licenses also matter less when there are so many weapons around is another one. If the number of places with fire arms is extremely high it obviously becomes a lot easier to break/walk in to an area were you can steal fire arms compared to what it would be in for instance Japan or Sweden.
I mean sure if you have connection within criminal organizations in Sweden you probably can find guns, not so sure about rifles that is pretty rare. But, just because you hate society, have a mental disorder or is in general very lonely does it not mean that you have connections within criminal organizations so that becomes an limiting factor. Another thing is that when weapons are rare they become expensive, so you might not simply be able to afford it.
But as I said I think it will take long time before a change in America would take effect. They need to start somewhere, although I imagine it will take several decays before America would have a meaningful decline.
P.S: I am a Dragoon now ^.^
there are about 1/3 as many guns per capita in Sweden as in USA, we have the 8th highest Gun density in the world. Because you know, everyone and their mom knows how to hunt moose. Its really funny when someone claims that we are so incredibly restrictive.
|
all i hear is freedom, and taking away rights and bla
so let me see this from a european point of view: in the USA ppl have to have pistols and rifles. and they dont need a reason to have them. its just their right. so they want to have them and dont want to discuss about it.
so why not hand out grenade launchers, tnt, bombs, and ABC-weapons over to every citizen. because its their RIGHT to have weapons and so why not more FIRE POWER and MORE EFFICIENT weapons??
i mean, the goal of a gun is to destroy its target. why not make sure the targeted area is completely destroyed with heavy assault w/e weapons?
i'm serious: gun obsession and the need to have guns can imo only be justified by oneself if u are afraid of being attacked or murdered in your own home. if thats the case for the majority of the USA. i can just feel pity..
peace
|
On December 16 2012 20:23 Noak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 19:55 4ZakeN87 wrote:
Well America's problem is that it had a retarded weapon law for such a long time that it is hard for them to change it now when they have "x" amount of million weapons in circulation. America dug a very deep hole and when it starts to get gloomy down there they realized that the surface is far away. Of course you "need a weapon" if every nut bag can get hold off a full automatic rifle.
One of several disadvantages with Americas position. That weapons require licenses also matter less when there are so many weapons around is another one. If the number of places with fire arms is extremely high it obviously becomes a lot easier to break/walk in to an area were you can steal fire arms compared to what it would be in for instance Japan or Sweden.
I mean sure if you have connection within criminal organizations in Sweden you probably can find guns, not so sure about rifles that is pretty rare. But, just because you hate society, have a mental disorder or is in general very lonely does it not mean that you have connections within criminal organizations so that becomes an limiting factor. Another thing is that when weapons are rare they become expensive, so you might not simply be able to afford it.
But as I said I think it will take long time before a change in America would take effect. They need to start somewhere, although I imagine it will take several decays before America would have a meaningful decline.
P.S: I am a Dragoon now ^.^ there are about 1/3 as many guns per capita in Sweden as in USA, we have the 8th highest Gun density in the world. Because you know, everyone and their mom knows how to hunt moose. Its really funny when someone claims that we are so incredibly restrictive.
Yeah I know, I have been on many moose hunts. But well it is really hard to walk around in a public area and hide such a rifle without anyone noticing since it is over a meter long. Also it fires kind of slow so it is not great for mass homicides and have usually clips with 5 bullets. + they have a lot higher recoil then normal guns/rifles.
So yeah sure you can, but compared to a normal gun it is inefficient, from several regards. Also in Sweden you are required to own and store all weapons in weapon lockers, and those things are pretty hard to break in to.
|
I was not aware of the fact that you can just take a gun no questions asked....that's beyond retarded. You don't make killing easy for imbecils... But again, that's not the highest % of killings anyways.
I'm for the right to carry and own a gun, even a semi-automatic one ( or are they all semis now ? ) after very though mental tests and heavy training in the use of it + how to handle your nerves in a tense situation; so I'd probably want to have a more tough car license kind of test ( I'm not sure how it happens in America, here it's pretty bad but whatever .. in an ideal world ... )
Guns....You know what is more dangerous than guns ? Cars. And kids drive them in some countries from when they are 16. Do you know 16 old kids ? Do you know how many of them are responsible ? Seriously when I was 16 I was so retarded it's not even funny. Wielding a big metal box at high speed in life is more dangerous than guns. Why ? Because tests suck - If we had proper tests in all matters that put our life in danger, not so many people would die without reason.
|
I'm from switzerland. We have a very liberal weapon law, but nobody cares about owning a weapon, because its a piece of shit. Why is there such a diffrence compared to the US?
|
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper health care is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that?
|
On December 16 2012 20:40 Mista_Masta wrote:
In my (European) opinion, it's sad that owning a gun is considered a right in the USA (while a gun is so clearly a device designed to kill people), while proper health care is considered a privilege. How can anyone be okay with that?
Gun ownership has so many more aspects besides that of owning a deadly weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
