EPTUser was warned for this post
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Risljaninasim
Netherlands228 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On December 16 2012 20:29 bOneSeven wrote: 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 can see your point in comparing guns to cars due to their lethal nature, but the problem with such a comparison is that apart from sports rifles, which are legal in many countries, the primary function of a gun is to kill another person. A car is certainly a very dangerous object, but we refer to most lethal cases involving cars as"accidents" because very few people intend to kill another person using a car and people with the intent to kill people would need to drive into a parade of people for it to be anywhere near as effective as a gun killing spree. Not that I'm against guns in particular, I just don't like this comparison  edit: To explain myself further about why I'm not against guns. I like the idea of the freedom it represents, It's only unfortunate that the US don't have this same desire with drugs. | ||
|
4ZakeN87
Sweden1071 Posts
Of course you yourself need a gun if everyone else owns a gun and it is stupidly easy to buy/steal guns cause there are so many around. But that is not a very good argument, the only reason it is valid is because there are so many weapons in circulation. It boils down to "everyone must have a weapon because everyone has a weapon". Sadly that is actually true today... but you should aim to break bad spirals, not maintain them. Other ones I read here is "guns represent freedom", 2: "create a free militia for US" 3: "they said it should be so in the declaration of independence". The first one is just... can't you show great freedom is some other way besides everyone owning their own personal cannon?! Aren't Americans famous for their ingenuity and creativity, surely you can coming up with something else. Second; No one will invade america, the global economy would collapse and it is just in every way retarded. About the third I am sure it is really touching for Americans... but this paper was written 250 years ago. This is the reason why the law have existed but the fact that the law has been made cannot be an argument by itself to why it should be maintained. With this logic every law ever passed would remain the same forever. The people how wrought it are not around anymore. The norms they were raised with and the world the lived in was very different from our own. You adept your laws and regulation according to present reality not something that was decided 250 years ago. Nah as European it is very hard to see the advantageous of this system, while the costs are very apparent. | ||
|
KrosusZorg
Sweden25 Posts
On a more serious note: I dont want to have a gun in my home, given the statistics of accidents, the cost and my general unease. I also feel more safe in a society where all shit-scared and violent people havn't one either. Interesting site here showing statistics of how gun laws actually increase crime, and how less or even no gun laws decrease crime: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Are you sure that homepage is not cherry picking results to support their ideology? They say they are conservative/liberals and the founder have published a book stating that basically all fields of science supports the bible, to do that you have to be a master at self delusion. Could you point me to the data supporting your view: that gun laws increase crime? I found one graph showing a spike in homicides 10 years after gun-laws were introduced. A spike that settled down again to earlier levels before the gun-laws were struck down again. I dont see how this support either side of the argument since neither trend (increase nor decline) seems correlated to the introduction or removal of said laws. Besides, even I might agree that gun-laws are not necessary helpful in a society already brimming with weapons. | ||
|
TheSwedishFan
Sweden608 Posts
People kill people. People with guns can kill a lot of people. A certain amount of people are mentally disturbed and are potential killers. These, usually men, should not have access to guns. If they do, they can cause a lot of harm. By having a ton of guns floating around, mentally disturbed, in some very rare cases women and criminals can get hold of weapons. This causes society a lot of truble. Their respons is then to sell more guns so people can protect themselves from these mentally ill men, -women and criminals. The more guns there are the larger is the chance that one of them are in the hands of someone like Adam Lanzer. The more guns that are in hands of someone like Adam Lanzer the more events like this will be in the newspapers. I have yet to hear a story where some bloke carrying a gun have stopped someone from a act like the one Adam performed. Yet they insist that owning guns should be a right that everyone should have? | ||
|
DrF33lg00d
Germany15 Posts
I came to realize that, in essence, this is the way we in America want things to be. We want our freedom, and we want our firearms, and if we have to endure the occasional school shooting, so be it. A terrible shame, but hey — didn’t some guy in China just do the same thing with a knife? ... Children will continue to pay for a freedom their elders enjoy. Sorry, if this is a re-post. | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
-Any felony conviction or adjudication as a delinquent. -Adjudication as a mentally incompetent person; any involuntary commitment for mental illness, condition, or disorder. -Any false or misleading statement on the application for a handgun license. -Conviction of any of the following misdemeanor offenses in any state: assault and battery causing serious physical injury, aggravated assault and battery, or a second assault and battery conviction, stalking, a violation relating to a protection from domestic abuse law, illegal drug use or possession. -Any attempted suicide or other condition relating to or indicating mental instability. -Current treatment for a mental illness. -Habitual misdemeanor criminal activity. -An outstanding felony warrant. In addition to this there's also a background check once you've sent everything off. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On December 16 2012 21:30 4ZakeN87 wrote: To be honest it feels like there are few real arguments for why US need everyone to own a weapon. Of course you yourself need a gun if everyone else owns a gun and it is stupidly easy to buy/steal guns cause there are so many around. But that is not a very good argument, the only reason it is valid is because there are so many weapons in circulation. It boils down to "everyone must have a weapon because everyone has a weapon". Sadly that is actually true today... but you should aim to break bad spirals, not maintain them. You are right, of course, but there just isn't a realistic way to break the bad spiral as it is. If there is going to be a major reform in America to stop school shootings, it would give far more returns to eliminate the factors that drive people to committing gun crimes than it would to take away guns. To put it in another way, you take the gun away from gun crime and you are still left with the crime, but you take away the crime you are left with just the gun. | ||
|
Sp4cem4nSpiff
United States46 Posts
| ||
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
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? Actually we have a right to own both. A right is something you are permitted to do. Objections to healthcare reform are because it's being transferred from a right to an obligation. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 22:36 Scarecrow wrote: If, according to gun lobbyists, guns make you and your family safer, then why shouldn't children feel as safe at school as they are at home? Every American teacher should have a military-grade firearm handy in case they need to defend themselves and their students. More gun saturation not less is surely the answer to this issue if they truly do increase public safety. There will also be the added bonus of a teacher-based militia versus the imminent threats of a tyrannical Obama or a North Korean/Iranian invasion. The detriments of arming teachers in classrooms has been widely acknowledged. While proponents say it would stop school shootings, most people realize that in reality, it would cause more problems than it would solve. I think it's worth noting that in the USA, the right to OWN a gun does not equate to the right to CARRY a gun wherever you want. The owner of the property can restrict gun rights of people on their property. The government (aka, the people) have done exactly this in most government buildings. | ||
|
SiZe
Sweden20 Posts
I am from Sweden where guns are very illegal, and the rate of murder is really really low. The thought of SO many people thinking having guns is a "right" and that having a gun "promotes self defense" is just insane! America, YOU killed those kids with your flawed laws! I am so sorry but this is how it is, way too easy to obtain fire arms. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 21:38 KrosusZorg wrote: I want a nuke, best deterrent there is. Ideal case: one where the trigger is connected to my heart beat. Dont infringe on my freedom dammit! On a more serious note: I dont want to have a gun in my home, given the statistics of accidents, the cost and my general unease. I also feel more safe in a society where all shit-scared and violent people havn't one either. I don't think this is the case for most Americans. In my family alone (and I come from a suburban family), about 75% of us are trained in weapons from either hunting or military training. I don't think any of the others would be uncomfortable with a gun in the room as long as it's being properly handled. Are you sure that homepage is not cherry picking results to support their ideology? They say they are conservative/liberals and the founder have published a book stating that basically all fields of science supports the bible, to do that you have to be a master at self delusion. I think he was just presenting the other side, not saying "these are the only facts that exist." You always have to take a website source with a grain of salt, and some with more salt because of who that source is. This would be one of them. A fact isn't necessarily wrong just because of who wrote it, and there are many legitimate sources which also back up some of these claims. Could you point me to the data supporting your view: that gun laws increase crime? I found one graph showing a spike in homicides 10 years after gun-laws were introduced. A spike that settled down again to earlier levels before the gun-laws were struck down again. I dont see how this support either side of the argument since neither trend (increase nor decline) seems correlated to the introduction or removal of said laws. Besides, even I might agree that gun-laws are not necessary helpful in a society already brimming with weapons. There are studies that show both sides. I tend think this might be because gun-laws only have a little effect on the problem and due to variation you can get either result if you tweak the data just right. 'Scientists' aren't always as noble as they pretend to be. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 16 2012 23:25 SiZe wrote: LOL oh my god! I am from Sweden where guns are very illegal, and the rate of murder is really really low. The thought of SO many people thinking having guns is a "right" and that having a gun "promotes self defense" is just insane! America, YOU killed those kids with your flawed laws! I am so sorry but this is how it is, way too easy to obtain fire arms. Very illegal? You are 10th in the world in legal guns per capita. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On December 16 2012 23:32 BluePanther wrote: Very illegal? You are 10th in the world in legal guns per capita. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list And riddle me this; How come Finland, with almost half again as much guns per capita, has only ten percent more gun-related homicide per capita than Sweden? And conversely, with about half as many guns per capita as United States, why does Finland still have only one sixth of gun-related homicide per capita? I'd try to plot a graph for guns per capita against gun homicide per capita, but I have other things to do right now. EDIT: Just look at Uruguay, Norway, Sweden and France; all within .6 guns per hundred people, and vastly different gun homicide rates. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On December 16 2012 23:21 BluePanther wrote: The detriments of arming teachers in classrooms has been widely acknowledged. While proponents say it would stop school shootings, most people realize that in reality, it would cause more problems than it would solve. So can you see how this equates to gun ownership in general? If having armed teachers is detrimental why is having armed parents and homes any less of a problem? There are very few environments where guns solve more problems than they cause. | ||
|
Linkirvana
Netherlands365 Posts
On December 16 2012 23:25 SiZe wrote: LOL oh my god! I am from Sweden where guns are very illegal, and the rate of murder is really really low. The thought of SO many people thinking having guns is a "right" and that having a gun "promotes self defense" is just insane! America, YOU killed those kids with your flawed laws! I am so sorry but this is how it is, way too easy to obtain fire arms. "Weapons are not available legally, well that sure makes my plan to murder 20 people impossible!" Said no one ever. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On December 17 2012 02:09 Linkirvana wrote: "Weapons are not available legally, well that sure makes my plan to murder 20 people impossible!" Said no one ever. Very weak arguement, if you read through this topic its been counter'd plenty of times. | ||
|
Linkirvana
Netherlands365 Posts
On December 17 2012 02:12 Reaps wrote: Very weak arguement, if you read through this topic its been counter'd plenty of times. Well that sure helps, you expect me to read 238 pages of what I can only assume is mostly shitty arguments? A link perhaps, your personal opinion? I can't argue with this | ||
| ||
