|
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 22:17 run.at.me wrote:
I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
The terrible irony of the American idea of "Self Protection" is that we know that there are so many guns around and that nearly anyone can get a weapon if they try had enough. So how do you defend your home? With a gun which then possibly leads to tragedies.
considering i live in the suburbs with a relatively low crime rate i don't ever expect someone to pop in my house with a gun or a robber in the middle of the night. But some people just believe in "Better safe than sorry"
I live in New York and the gun laws are some of the most strict in the nation iirc, yet i can name about 4 friends who's parents have guns somewhere in their house.
|
On December 19 2012 03:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote:
Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea" So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer. Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard. It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out. I once saw a guy get shot three times and then he slit the shooter's throat with a knife. Guns are ineffective, you should defend your home with knives.
So, you're suggesting that since a fringe case with lethal weapons occurs, it means that non-lethal weapons suffering the inherent drawbacks of non-lethal weapons must also be a fringe case?
|
On December 19 2012 02:58 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 02:48 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 01:59 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote:
I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous. Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant. Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted. You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India. A straw man? Seriously? If you read this thread you would know I made plenty of posts dealing with this exact topic. Of course you didn't read them you only saw a post you disagreed with and in your haste to tell me I'm wrong and you're right you ignored literally every single post I've made except for this one.
No but his point was: There should be no need for most people including Americans to protect themselves with deadly weapons. Which you responded: Hurr durr, can't compare his country (Australia) to America.
|
On December 19 2012 03:22 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:16 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 decado90 wrote:On December 19 2012 02:48 Hryul wrote:On December 19 2012 01:59 heliusx wrote:On December 18 2012 22:17 run.at.me wrote:
I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous. Trying to compare a country with 22million people to America is insanely ignorant. Repeating the same strawman over and over again is insanely ignorant. I could compare a donut to a cow if I wanted. You fail to provide a reason why it should be inadequate to compare one first world country to another. And please don't bullshit us with "violent history". All Countries had their share in warfare etc. or with "more people" because then we could compare China only to India. Do you have millions of poor minorities that commit over half of all murders in your country? Pretty sure that poor people commit the largest percentage of murders in most countries... But hey, ITS ONLY THE MINORITY ONES THAT ARE BAD That's not my point. He wanted to know why you can't compare America to small European countries and that's the reason I gave. Also, off topic, your argument is flawed. There are more poor whites in America than every minority combined.
By income, maybe. By wealth, no.
http://ross.mayfirst.org/files/oliver-shapiro-black-white-wealth.pdf
|
How else are you going to shoot other people? We need guns!
|
On December 19 2012 03:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:20 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 03:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote:
Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea" So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer. Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard. It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out. I once saw a guy get shot three times and then he slit the shooter's throat with a knife. Guns are ineffective, you should defend your home with knives. So, you're suggesting that since a fringe case with lethal weapons occurs, it means that non-lethal weapons suffering the inherent drawbacks of non-lethal weapons must also be a fringe case?
I'm saying that your argument against the effectiveness of rubber bullets has as much credibility as my argument against the effectiveness of real bullets.
|
On December 19 2012 03:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:20 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 03:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote:
Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea" So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer. Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard. It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out. I once saw a guy get shot three times and then he slit the shooter's throat with a knife. Guns are ineffective, you should defend your home with knives. So, you're suggesting that since a fringe case with lethal weapons occurs, it means that non-lethal weapons suffering the inherent drawbacks of non-lethal weapons must also be a fringe case?
It's not a fringe case, though.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
|
On December 19 2012 03:57 Cybren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:35 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 03:20 Jormundr wrote:On December 19 2012 03:12 JingleHell wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Kaitlin wrote:On December 19 2012 01:35 SCkad wrote:
Rather than Gun control why not try and control the quantity of ammunition? a gun without ammo becomes a very expensive club with an extremely limited range, why not make conventional ammunition illegal (to all but authorities) to own but let people have rubber ammunition which is non-lethal.
im not an expert but i assume rubber ammo will hurt/potentially disable a burglar which negates the whole "protect my family idea" So you have no problem making that leap from "hurt/potentially disable" all the way to "which negates the whole protect my family idea" ? It's ok that you feel a "potential" defense is enough to protect your family, but not mine. One of the problems with certain drugs is that they make even tasers completely ineffective, and you suggest that some rubber pellets will do better ? Naivete is not the answer. Recently watched a prison documentary on Netflix, an unruly guy on the yard was literally sitting by the backboard of a basketball hoop, making fun of the cops while they fed him CS gas, which is pepper spray on steroids, and dumped rubber bullets into him, because he was refusing to exit the yard. It was completely ineffective. He eventually climbed down and walked out. I once saw a guy get shot three times and then he slit the shooter's throat with a knife. Guns are ineffective, you should defend your home with knives. So, you're suggesting that since a fringe case with lethal weapons occurs, it means that non-lethal weapons suffering the inherent drawbacks of non-lethal weapons must also be a fringe case? It's not a fringe case, though. http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm
Did you read that at all before you posted it?
|
yes? The point is that knives are not some how magically less lethal than firearms, or that having a firearm makes you immune to knives. Knife wielding attackers within a twenty or so foot radius can still close the distance and kill or maim you before or as someone with a gun could shoot them.
|
Mn. I really don't think the problem is we need more gun control laws. The problem is that we don't follow up on people. The Connecticut shooter had mental problems and he was on medication. A background check was not done on him which allowed him to get his weapons. The same thing happened with the Virginia Tech shooter - due to some weird privacy laws that I don't fully understand, a background check was not done on him. We don't need more gun control laws, what we need to do is actually ENFORCE the ones we already have.
|
On December 19 2012 04:04 tMomiji wrote:
Mn. I really don't think the problem is we need more gun control laws. The problem is that we don't follow up on people. The Connecticut shooter had mental problems and he was on medication. A background check was not done on him which allowed him to get his weapons. The same thing happened with the Virginia Tech shooter - due to some weird privacy laws that I don't fully understand, a background check was not done on him. We don't need more gun control laws, what we need to do is actually ENFORCE the ones we already have.
He stole the weapons from his mother. He didn't buy any firearms.
|
On December 19 2012 04:02 Cybren wrote:
yes? The point is that knives are not some how magically less lethal than firearms, or that having a firearm makes you immune to knives. Knife wielding attackers within a twenty or so foot radius can still close the distance and kill or maim you before or as someone with a gun could shoot them.
Yeah. It is possible. But you don't disprove it being a fringe case that a guy with three rounds in him was still going strong with mayhem on his mind.
In the military, that sort of shit gets people the Medal of Honor. I'd say it's pretty fucking fringe.
And the article was about how to mitigate those risks, not saying that you can expect a gun to be useless against a knife.
Yes, the point of a gun is to be more effective at range, not to be more effective within arm's reach.
|
I have always felt that gun control in America is more of an academic exercise than a practical one. It is very apparent that super strict gun cultures save lives. It is very clear that this particular freedom, at the level it exists, comes with a higher cost than it is worth.
But when it is all said and done, it wouldn't matter if you could provide concrete evidence that such a system could save thousands of lives including those twenty first graders. Too many guns exist already and our culture and economy have entrenched too much in a traditional American ideal to change.
In addition to all of these challenges any change, short of revolution, would start with the law abiding citizens. And what do you think would happen the first time a criminal shot a formerly armed victim? The media alone would make it politically untenable.
We will just continue having a disproportionate number of shooting fatalities with the occasional poorly enforced law thrown into the mix to make us feel better.
|
On December 19 2012 04:05 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 04:04 tMomiji wrote:
Mn. I really don't think the problem is we need more gun control laws. The problem is that we don't follow up on people. The Connecticut shooter had mental problems and he was on medication. A background check was not done on him which allowed him to get his weapons. The same thing happened with the Virginia Tech shooter - due to some weird privacy laws that I don't fully understand, a background check was not done on him. We don't need more gun control laws, what we need to do is actually ENFORCE the ones we already have. He stole the weapons from his mother. He didn't buy any firearms.
Mnn...in that case she should have been more careful with them.
NOT saying she deserved what happened to her - you will NEVER hear me say such a horrible thing - but my point is that the problem is our failure to follow through. All the laws in the world won't make a difference if we can't follow through...you know?
|
Guns and gunshot wounds are not immediately lethal; someone shot that still wishes to do harm can reciprocate. Guns are not magic.
|
|
|
On December 19 2012 02:33 Awatsu wrote:
No, only one is needed to kill his whole class first then wait for 1-2 more teachers to come and kill each other in the gunfire.
The idea is that it would be contained to that one classroom. If that teacher really wanted to kill their class they'd be able to do it easily with or without easy access to a firearm. The situation you presented is similar to saying that since the police have firearms and can turn against the civilian population the civilian population should be armed. And if this logic continues than there will be no guns in the world. PERFECT! That would be amazing. But we live in the real world and that will never happen.
A more realistic situation would be to implement a guard at each school that carries a firearm. If a situation were to arise involving a gunman on campus there would be someone who was trained in using a firearm to hopefully put an end to it before it got out of hand.
|
On December 19 2012 04:05 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 04:04 tMomiji wrote:
Mn. I really don't think the problem is we need more gun control laws. The problem is that we don't follow up on people. The Connecticut shooter had mental problems and he was on medication. A background check was not done on him which allowed him to get his weapons. The same thing happened with the Virginia Tech shooter - due to some weird privacy laws that I don't fully understand, a background check was not done on him. We don't need more gun control laws, what we need to do is actually ENFORCE the ones we already have. He stole the weapons from his mother. He didn't buy any firearms.
And Cho passed his background Federal & VA State Police check...he had no convictions/arrests. And nothing medical related would have shown up anyway.
|
|
|
Very interesting! Great watch, thanks.
(it's about Australia and gun control)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
