|
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 18 2012 09:21 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:07 Greenwizard wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:In the United States people own guns to protect themselves against threats as well as a Tyrannical Government. It is written in the constitution and therefore is a cornerstone of our government. The right to own guns is going nowhere. Guns are our protection against a Government that listens not to the people but to itself. For those saying that the 2nd amendment is not applicable to modern times I present to you the Switzerland Example. Most have heard of this overly used cliche of an example so google it if you do not understand. With recent events it is easy to scapegoat gun owners for what has happened. But in reality, if someone as sick and twisted as this man was is determined to hurt people, we will do it regardless of if he had legal access to guns or not. Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htmBanning guns is starting another war on drugs. A war that cannot be won. Guns are here to stay embrace it. Banning guns will work as well as banning Heroin, Meth or even Weed has. Two states have already tried to legalize weed and this forum gives them praise. Same situation with guns. Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it. On December 18 2012 08:54 spacemonkeyy wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 ConGee wrote:
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant. Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either. The logical progression for a spree killer is not gun -> knife. Knifes do not provide the sheer killing power guns do. Spree killers would switch to homemade bombs. Sometimes bombs would be the first choice as shown in this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Well people kill people ... not guns ... but letting them have guns helps. And all i can say is i really hope not everyone thinks like you. How can you imagine a school teacher with a gun at a class where the children are under 10 years old ? And in my opinion drugs are easy to get because sadly people let them. Have the guns in a container such as a fire extinguisher. Let an alarm go off when one is broken.
Haha, the idea of that is really funny to me. I don't know if that's a solution but I appreciate it.
|
I don't really like the term "assault weapon".
It's an intellectually misleading title meant to imply that people are able to buy fully automatic weapons (they can't, generally. Whether they should be able to at all, sure that's a separate debate, but in general it's regulated very tightly at the federal level, and illegal in most states).
But "assault weapons", a term obviously meant to remind people of "assault rifle" doesn't really mean "assault rifle". It means "semi-automatic longarm rifle".
|
On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote:[quote] I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size  . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing! I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance
Welcome to two pages late
|
On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote:[quote] I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing! I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance
Having a different opinion is not ignorance. Especially when it's that side that uses facts to support itself. Read first post on previous page.
Let's try to have a civil discussion here.
|
On December 18 2012 09:25 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Welcome to two pages late
You've been constantly wrong on the facts, I refer you to a compilation of facts already ready to read, and the best you can say is that I'm ignorant.
Boy...
|
On December 18 2012 09:26 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Welcome to two pages late You've been constantly wrong on the facts, I refer you to a compilation of facts already ready to read, and the best you can say is that I'm ignorant. Boy...
I actually read that as him saying I was ignorant. In which case he could be seen as right seeing as I was proven wrong on the terminology regarding assault rifles.
He's 2 pages late and add nothing to the discussion.. hell, he doesn't add anything to the discussion either way.
|
On December 18 2012 09:24 Cybren wrote:
I don't really like the term "assault weapon".
It's an intellectually misleading title meant to imply that people are able to buy fully automatic weapons (they can't, generally. Whether they should be able to at all, sure that's a separate debate, but in general it's regulated very tightly at the federal level, and illegal in most states).
But "assault weapons", a term obviously meant to remind people of "assault rifle" doesn't really mean "assault rifle". It means "semi-automatic longarm rifle".
Correct, the banning of which does nothing to stop the problem the ban was meant to fix. Not to mention assault weapons are only classified by look, never by function.
|
On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it...
|
On December 18 2012 09:28 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:26 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Welcome to two pages late You've been constantly wrong on the facts, I refer you to a compilation of facts already ready to read, and the best you can say is that I'm ignorant. Boy... I actually read that as him saying I was ignorant. In which case he could be seen as right seeing as I was proven wrong on the terminology regarding assault rifles.
Excuse me, then. It's just how I usually see such opposition on the thread now because sometimes no matter how hard you argue the facts, people will just call you names.
|
On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it...
I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however.
|
I think that change is needed, and I believe that Obama will at least make moves in the direction of greater regulation and checks for gun purchases. The legislation will be what it will be.
However, I don't think that it will be enough. What needs to change is the 'gun culture' in America. When you compare the US to Switzerland and Israel who also have high gun ownership per capita the difference in the number of deaths caused is startling. I believe that this can be traced back to the influence of military life on society in these countries. People are taught to handle and respect their weapon and become professionals with it. In America it seems that the mentality is not one of a 'military society' (sorry for clunky phrasing) but a militant society that lacks systems for training and indoctrinating all gun owners but has relatively easy access to weapons.
Also, this has probably been brought up but the sillyness of the gun vs knife debate is illustrated by events in China just last week. A man walked into a school and attacked 22 children and adults with a knife (hard to get a gun legally in China). There were no fatalities. In the same week a 20 year old with three or four guns walked into a school and slaughtered 27 children and adults. Yes people will kill people, but we don't need to make it easier for the psychos to inflict their inner pain on society at large.
Don't get me started on the media coverage of this tragic event. It was like a pack of hyenas that had caught the scent of blood on the air. Despicable subversion of ethical standards to be the first to break the story and get those ratings up.
|
On December 18 2012 09:25 Excludos wrote:
Welcome to two pages late
ESL!
|
On December 18 2012 09:25 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Having a different opinion is not ignorance. Especially when it's that side that uses facts to support itself. Read first post on previous page. Let's try to have a civil discussion here.
I stand by common sense. Inability to implement a ban shouldn't be a reason for no ban
|
On December 18 2012 09:35 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:25 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Having a different opinion is not ignorance. Especially when it's that side that uses facts to support itself. Read first post on previous page. Let's try to have a civil discussion here. I stand by common sense. Inability to implement a ban shouldn't be a reason for no ban
You think a ban is a good idea?
|
On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it...
Next time i'll provide a link to the nonpartisan CNBC...
On December 18 2012 09:24 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:21 Jisall wrote:On December 18 2012 09:07 Greenwizard wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:In the United States people own guns to protect themselves against threats as well as a Tyrannical Government. It is written in the constitution and therefore is a cornerstone of our government. The right to own guns is going nowhere. Guns are our protection against a Government that listens not to the people but to itself. For those saying that the 2nd amendment is not applicable to modern times I present to you the Switzerland Example. Most have heard of this overly used cliche of an example so google it if you do not understand. With recent events it is easy to scapegoat gun owners for what has happened. But in reality, if someone as sick and twisted as this man was is determined to hurt people, we will do it regardless of if he had legal access to guns or not. Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htmBanning guns is starting another war on drugs. A war that cannot be won. Guns are here to stay embrace it. Banning guns will work as well as banning Heroin, Meth or even Weed has. Two states have already tried to legalize weed and this forum gives them praise. Same situation with guns. Imagine if school teachers carried how this situation would have changed. This man attacked a school because it was defenseless and he wanted to kill as many people as he could before taking the cowards way out. Would he have done the same if he realized he would get one or two shots off before receiving return fire? I doubt it. On December 18 2012 08:54 spacemonkeyy wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 ConGee wrote:
All of his adult victims were 30-50 year old women. I don't believe they would have been able to effectively disarm and subdue the assailant. Not sure if serious, killing something with a knife is far from a clean, quick, easy affair. Easily overwhelmed. The suspect himself did not look exactly like the hulk either. The logical progression for a spree killer is not gun -> knife. Knifes do not provide the sheer killing power guns do. Spree killers would switch to homemade bombs. Sometimes bombs would be the first choice as shown in this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Well people kill people ... not guns ... but letting them have guns helps. And all i can say is i really hope not everyone thinks like you. How can you imagine a school teacher with a gun at a class where the children are under 10 years old ? And in my opinion drugs are easy to get because sadly people let them. Have the guns in a container such as a fire extinguisher. Let an alarm go off when one is broken. Haha, the idea of that is really funny to me. I don't know if that's a solution but I appreciate it.
It is something to think about. Giving teachers the ability to fight back.
|
On December 18 2012 09:33 frantic.cactus wrote:
I think that change is needed, and I believe that Obama will at least make moves in the direction of greater regulation and checks for gun purchases. The legislation will be what it will be.
However, I don't think that it will be enough. What needs to change is the 'gun culture' in America. When you compare the US to Switzerland and Israel who also have high gun ownership per capita the difference in the number of deaths caused is startling. I believe that this can be traced back to the influence of military life on society in these countries. People are taught to handle and respect their weapon and become professionals with it. In America it seems that the mentality is not one of a 'military society' (sorry for clunky phrasing) but a militant society that lacks systems for training and indoctrinating all gun owners but has relatively easy access to weapons.
Also, this has probably been brought up but the sillyness of the gun vs knife debate is illustrated by events in China just last week. A man walked into a school and attacked 22 children and adults with a knife (hard to get a gun legally in China). There were no fatalities. In the same week a 20 year old with three or four guns walked into a school and slaughtered 27 children and adults. Yes people will kill people, but we don't need to make it easier for the psychos to inflict their inner pain on society at large.
Don't get me started on the media coverage of this tragic event. It was like a pack of hyenas that had caught the scent of blood on the air. Despicable subversion of ethical standards to be the first to break the story and get those ratings up.
Yea, there are definitely some nutjobs with guns. I personally wouldn't be against NOT selling a gun to a guy looking like Larry the Cable Guy hooting and hollering like he should be on Honey Boo Boo. But if he's not mentally unstable (arguable in this case, lol) then what can you do?
Remember half the households in the U.S. have at least 1 firearm. There aren't very many people like this Larry the Cable guy. Most are professionals with families and a career.
|
On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however.
But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose..
|
Giving teachers guns is just overboard. But there is nothing wrong with having at least ONE individual, a trained security guard with thorough background/psychological checks for instance, on a campus. The whole "let's all hide under our desks and be victims while we wait for police to arrive" is nuts. We should dispense with the absurd "gun-free zone" notion. First of all, it's not a gun free zone when someone can simply enter it with a gun, second, it's basically an invitation, hey come shoot us over here.
|
On December 18 2012 09:35 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:25 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:23 nolook wrote:On December 18 2012 08:48 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:34 Hargol wrote:On December 18 2012 08:25 Excludos wrote:On December 18 2012 08:20 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote:On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote:
[quote]
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime? You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle? I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind. Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does? And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians. And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom? "Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles. Why do people keep saying "You have no knowledge about firearms" because I typed a word wrong? Have you forgotten that Norway has mandatory military practice where everyone learns how to shoot with fully automatic assault rifles? (Or at my time, fully automatic hand canons..the ag3 kicks quite well). Me a little bit more than most else as I was a hunter (I have no idea what the equivalent in english is. Basically we had more training with firearms and practiced sneaking behind enemy lines and that sort of thing). This will be the first and last time I ever say this on an internet forum, mostly because I hate it when other people do. Stop judging people relentlessly because you want to prove them wrong by any means possible. And you are as stupid as you sound if you think assault rifles have the same function as a hunting rifle. (Hint: One is used for hunting, the other is not) You're trying to argue with ignorance Having a different opinion is not ignorance. Especially when it's that side that uses facts to support itself. Read first post on previous page. Let's try to have a civil discussion here. I stand by common sense. Inability to implement a ban shouldn't be a reason for no ban
A ban isn't anything close to common sense. Not only is it impossible but it won't happen in any of our lifetimes. I made a few posts on the last few pages about why it's just not feasible and won't happen. I don't have issues with tougher restrictions and regulations but talk of an outright ban is completely asinine. Now I'm off to play some BF3.
|
On December 18 2012 09:44 warshop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 09:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 09:28 warshop wrote:On December 18 2012 08:54 Jisall wrote:Have some evidence as to why it might be safer to have everyone carrying then nobody at all. http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm I hope you do realize that your evidence comes from "gunowners". You might as well cite Fox News if you're at it... I can see how that might look. Always judge a piece by its sources, however. But who's to say that this piece was objective in its evaluation...? Obviously, someone who advocates something will probably cite sources that are beneficial to its purpose..
That's why if you don't believe it, it's best to start googling everything you can on gun control efficacy and judge for yourself. I've never met someone who thought banning was a good idea after letting them go off on their own and figuring it out for themselves.
If you need help with where to start, try here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/q5xty/gun_debate_basics/
To quote it:
We live in a time where massive amounts of reliable information is available to us within seconds, if you know what to look for and how to look for it. To me there is no longer any excuse for the continued spread of misinformation, the very wellspring from which bad decisions and terrible suffering has flowed from for all of history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
