• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:56
CEST 03:56
KST 10:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed13Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed Who will win EWC 2025? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Segway man no more. Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 707 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 271 272 273 274 275 891 Next
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.
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 17:32:00
December 19 2012 17:31 GMT
#5441
On December 20 2012 02:29 Keldrath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 02:23 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:17 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:15 heliusx wrote:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."


united states vs emerson

You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.

There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.

What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.


So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?


Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.


Precisely as I thought. We're done here.
dude bro.
Keldrath
Profile Joined July 2010
United States449 Posts
December 19 2012 17:37 GMT
#5442
On December 20 2012 02:31 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 02:29 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:23 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:17 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:15 heliusx wrote:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."


united states vs emerson

You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.

There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.

What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.


So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?


Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.


Precisely as I thought. We're done here.


You do realize that an argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person in question actually is an authority on the subject. Whereas you are making the arguement from authority fallacy because your authority is not an authority on the subject of language and is actually interpreting it their own way to suit their own agenda, well 5 of them are anyways.

They do get the ultimate say for now, but dont pretend they are authorities on the subject we were discussing.
If you want peace... prepare for war.
decado90
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States480 Posts
December 19 2012 17:43 GMT
#5443
The world would be a much better place without guns. I have hope in our generation-- the most tolerant, educated, and open minded in history. Maybe in 40 years there will be no guns in the world.
"Be formless like water"- Bruce Lee
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
December 19 2012 17:51 GMT
#5444
On December 20 2012 02:37 Keldrath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 02:31 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:29 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:23 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:17 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:15 heliusx wrote:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."


united states vs emerson

You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.

There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.

What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.


So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?


Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.


Precisely as I thought. We're done here.


You do realize that an argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person in question actually is an authority on the subject. Whereas you are making the arguement from authority fallacy because your authority is not an authority on the subject of language and is actually interpreting it their own way to suit their own agenda, well 5 of them are anyways.

They do get the ultimate say for now, but dont pretend they are authorities on the subject we were discussing.


....the supreme court is literally the ultimate and final authority on constitutional law.
dude bro.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11498 Posts
December 19 2012 17:52 GMT
#5445
On December 20 2012 02:16 Zaqwe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 01:49 Simberto wrote:
On December 20 2012 01:26 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote:
don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?

20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?

If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.


That is your interpretation of what happened. People who are not from the USA interpret it as 26 people being killed because a lunatic had access to an automatic rifle.

And a better way of protecting people then to have a shootout around them is to prevent the guy that wants to harm them from having an automatic rifle.

Another problem with protection through guns is that it is incredibly dangerous by itself. If you have your gun secured in a save in your home, and at a different place then its ammunition, which is apparently how all gun lobbyists handle their guns, it won't protect you from anything. If you always carry your gun with you in a way that makes it easy and fast to reach and fire, which would be necessary to protect yourself from someone else with a gun, and know that everyone else could be and is very likely to be carrying a concealed gun himself, you suddenly have a situation where lots of scared people with guns ready to fire run around and fear that someone else might shoot them first, before they can fire their gun. In my opinion, this situation is far more likely to get innocent people shot by accident then it is to protect anyone from gun violence.

Your wild, panicked, fearful fantasy is so detached from reality it would be funny if not for the fact that you are advocating denying people their human right to self defense.

This type of "argumentation" (to be generous) is startlingly typical of gun control advocates. They go off on completely insane rants about how gun ownership will cause some sort of chain reaction apocalypse of shootouts over absolutely nothing.

When you try to show them facts contradictory to their delusions, they are blind to them. When you ask for evidence supporting their doomsday scenario, they go mute.

Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 01:49 Simberto wrote:
One has to be realistic. There is no way that noone in any country will ever get murdered. What one should look for is the way that reduces the amount of violent crime, the severity of the results of those violent crimes, and the amount of accidents happening.

I would rather live in a country where only the government and organized crime has access to firearms then in one where everyone has. Luckily for me i do, except for some people who shoot for sports and hunter with a licence, and i am not really convinced that that is an overly good idea either.

Yes, please, let's try to be realistic. Let's look at reality instead of writing preposterous fiction about the horrors of people being able to defend themselves instead of being completely helpless.

Spree shootings happen places where guns are banned. By contrast, places where everyone has a gun are incredibly safe. How often do you hear about 26 people being killed by a gunman at a gun show, or an NRA meeting?

It is a disparity in power that encourages violence. What you are advocating is to create a huge disparity in power between law abiding people and criminals, and between citizens and their government.

Just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the gun ban in school zones accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of that, then surely keep at it. But if you think that it was a tragedy and want to prevent them from happening again, gun bans need to be reversed.


Well, then just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the ease of availability of guns for everyone has accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of it, then surely keep at it. But if you think that higher murder rates then any other first world country, more gun accidents then any other first world country and a higher lethality rate of violent crimes then in any other first world country is a tragedy, then gun bans need to be increased.

The problem is that you got half-assed laws, because working laws get prevented by your gun lobby. Those half-assed laws only do a half-assed job. If everyone has access to guns, then of course someone can take a gun into a no-gun zone. Thus, they are not really effective at preventing this specific type of tragedy. They are pretty effective at preventing others, though. The problem is the first part of the statement, not the second. The fact alone that you think it is a reasonable system to have armed teachers in schools as a means to protect the children is pretty funny to anyone who is not from the US. Strangely enough, no other country appears to need to arm its teachers to protect the children in school, or has ever felt the need to do so.

But i just remembered why i usually stay out of these debates. If you really want to, you can keep shooting each other in the US all day long, if you all agree that that is how things should be, who am i to disagree. Meanwhile i will stay here in germany, knowing that my chance to be shot is about 10 times lower then yours. And if we exclude suicide, it is 50 times lower.
Keldrath
Profile Joined July 2010
United States449 Posts
December 19 2012 17:59 GMT
#5446
On December 20 2012 02:51 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 02:37 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:31 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:29 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:23 heliusx wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:17 Keldrath wrote:
On December 20 2012 02:15 heliusx wrote:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."


united states vs emerson

You're not being a "strict constitutional" you're flat out wrong implying YOUR interpretation of the constitution is correct without any meaningful evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have brought up was irrelevant to this discussion.

There is a whole section addressing that as well, I wish you guys would actually read it before responding like this with things that are already addressed.

What's the point in arguing with you guys, I could copy paste the entire thing in here for you to rebut everything you are bringing up and you still wouldn't bother to read it.


So basically you and some random linguistics professor are correct and the multiple rulings by the supreme courts are wrong. Am I getting this right?


Yes, he is actually an authority on the subject of language. Not only that but he specializes in this very subject of language.


Precisely as I thought. We're done here.


You do realize that an argument from authority is not a fallacy if the person in question actually is an authority on the subject. Whereas you are making the arguement from authority fallacy because your authority is not an authority on the subject of language and is actually interpreting it their own way to suit their own agenda, well 5 of them are anyways.

They do get the ultimate say for now, but dont pretend they are authorities on the subject we were discussing.


....the supreme court is literally the ultimate and final authority on constitutional law.

You know we were discussing the language and origin of the law which clearly supports the collectivist interpretation it originated as.

The supreme court were rewriting history.
If you want peace... prepare for war.
Zaqwe
Profile Joined March 2012
591 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 18:08:14
December 19 2012 18:03 GMT
#5447
On December 20 2012 02:52 Simberto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 02:16 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 20 2012 01:49 Simberto wrote:
On December 20 2012 01:26 Zaqwe wrote:
On December 20 2012 00:42 shell wrote:
don't you guys want to have a safer enviornment for your kids?

20 children got killed recently because they were sent to a zone where guns were forbidden. The question is do you want a safer environment for them?

If you want to protect someone, you don't accomplish that by disarming them and anyone who could possibly come to their defense.


That is your interpretation of what happened. People who are not from the USA interpret it as 26 people being killed because a lunatic had access to an automatic rifle.

And a better way of protecting people then to have a shootout around them is to prevent the guy that wants to harm them from having an automatic rifle.

Another problem with protection through guns is that it is incredibly dangerous by itself. If you have your gun secured in a save in your home, and at a different place then its ammunition, which is apparently how all gun lobbyists handle their guns, it won't protect you from anything. If you always carry your gun with you in a way that makes it easy and fast to reach and fire, which would be necessary to protect yourself from someone else with a gun, and know that everyone else could be and is very likely to be carrying a concealed gun himself, you suddenly have a situation where lots of scared people with guns ready to fire run around and fear that someone else might shoot them first, before they can fire their gun. In my opinion, this situation is far more likely to get innocent people shot by accident then it is to protect anyone from gun violence.

Your wild, panicked, fearful fantasy is so detached from reality it would be funny if not for the fact that you are advocating denying people their human right to self defense.

This type of "argumentation" (to be generous) is startlingly typical of gun control advocates. They go off on completely insane rants about how gun ownership will cause some sort of chain reaction apocalypse of shootouts over absolutely nothing.

When you try to show them facts contradictory to their delusions, they are blind to them. When you ask for evidence supporting their doomsday scenario, they go mute.

On December 20 2012 01:49 Simberto wrote:
One has to be realistic. There is no way that noone in any country will ever get murdered. What one should look for is the way that reduces the amount of violent crime, the severity of the results of those violent crimes, and the amount of accidents happening.

I would rather live in a country where only the government and organized crime has access to firearms then in one where everyone has. Luckily for me i do, except for some people who shoot for sports and hunter with a licence, and i am not really convinced that that is an overly good idea either.

Yes, please, let's try to be realistic. Let's look at reality instead of writing preposterous fiction about the horrors of people being able to defend themselves instead of being completely helpless.

Spree shootings happen places where guns are banned. By contrast, places where everyone has a gun are incredibly safe. How often do you hear about 26 people being killed by a gunman at a gun show, or an NRA meeting?

It is a disparity in power that encourages violence. What you are advocating is to create a huge disparity in power between law abiding people and criminals, and between citizens and their government.

Just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the gun ban in school zones accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of that, then surely keep at it. But if you think that it was a tragedy and want to prevent them from happening again, gun bans need to be reversed.


Well, then just try for a second to observe reality. Look what the ease of availability of guns for everyone has accomplished. Do you want more of that? If you want more of it, then surely keep at it. But if you think that higher murder rates then any other first world country, more gun accidents then any other first world country and a higher lethality rate of violent crimes then in any other first world country is a tragedy, then gun bans need to be increased.

The problem is that you got half-assed laws, because working laws get prevented by your gun lobby. Those half-assed laws only do a half-assed job. If everyone has access to guns, then of course someone can take a gun into a no-gun zone. Thus, they are not really effective at preventing this specific type of tragedy. They are pretty effective at preventing others, though. The problem is the first part of the statement, not the second. The fact alone that you think it is a reasonable system to have armed teachers in schools as a means to protect the children is pretty funny to anyone who is not from the US. Strangely enough, no other country appears to need to arm its teachers to protect the children in school, or has ever felt the need to do so.

But i just remembered why i usually stay out of these debates. If you really want to, you can keep shooting each other in the US all day long, if you all agree that that is how things should be, who am i to disagree. Meanwhile i will stay here in germany, knowing that my chance to be shot is about 10 times lower then yours. And if we exclude suicide, it is 50 times lower.


There's no telling if he wouldn't have simply made a bomb or used a stolen vehicle or some other weapon to attack people, were he unable to access guns. Turning this around doesn't work.

On the other hand, you can see for yourself the direct result of banning guns on school grounds. It turned people into helpless victims, made them a target, and caused the deaths of 26 innocent people who could only sit around and wait to die. This is a predictable consequence of removing the ability for self defense from law abiding citizens.

Upon seeing the no guns policy cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to repeat it or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

Thanks for proving my point about how your type goes mute when asked to provide evidence supporting your preposterous gun shootout apocalypse fantasy, and blind when shown contrary evidence.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11498 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 18:12:45
December 19 2012 18:09 GMT
#5448
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 19 2012 18:16 GMT
#5449
On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?


Tell me, what are you referring to as an "automatic" rifle? An automatic rifle doesn't require a separate trigger pull for multiple shots. You're thinking of semi-automatic, which automatically extracts and re-chambers, but still requires a subsequent trigger pull.

If you don't understand the subject matter even to that point, and don't intend to educate yourself on it before giving an opinion, you won't make yourself relevant to discourse.

The fact that one side of the debate refuses to educate themselves is a significant part of the reason that gun control legislation in the US tends to be patently ineffective.
jacosajh
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
2919 Posts
December 19 2012 18:16 GMT
#5450
On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?


I didn't read all 273 pages but I'm sure this came up several times. But again,

<Insert Willy Wonka .gif "Tell me about how criminals obey the law">
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13906 Posts
December 19 2012 18:18 GMT
#5451
On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?


It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen.

People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
3Form
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom389 Posts
December 19 2012 18:22 GMT
#5452
At the end of the day, what it boils down to is if I snap tomorrow, the worst I can do is push someone in front of a train. If I were an American with a gun at home, if I snap tomorrow I can go and shoot up a school.

I don't see how this sort of logic is refutable, really I don't.
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 19 2012 18:24 GMT
#5453
Serious question for people who favor extremely strict gun control.

Which of the following do you believe should be harder to obtain based on lethality?

[image loading]

[image loading]

+ Show Spoiler +
The "scary looking" black one is actually a pistol caliber carbine. The wooden one is an M1 Garand, a military rifle, more powerful, longer range. Better for killing, was used by the military.
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11498 Posts
December 19 2012 18:26 GMT
#5454
Well, i think i am out of here. Have fun shooting each other in the US, while civilised countries have actually working laws to deal with gun violence, which provide statistically far better results. It was obviously a mistake to enter this debate, i thought i would meet rational people here who have an other point of view which is logical, but apparently this is another of these situations where americans just live in another world then anyone else.

Fact is, all other first world countries have stricter gun control then you, and their deaths related to guns are lower by about an order of magnitude. Of course correlation does not equate causation, but you might really consider that there is SOMETHING they do that actually works better then what you do, and you probably won't like the answer what it is, because it is either gun control, or something you would probably describe as socialism.
Warheart
Profile Joined June 2012
Italy25 Posts
December 19 2012 18:27 GMT
#5455
On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16.

Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians.

I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally.


criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway.
war is in my heart,death is by my side!
aarsgier
Profile Joined November 2012
Cameroon11 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 18:33:28
December 19 2012 18:31 GMT
#5456
I think those anti-gun advocates show little respect to the victims of the shooting. They politicize this tragedy mostly to promote their own ideals rather than trying to have a clear perspective on a situation like this. I hope they do realize that these kinds of horrible events also occur in nations where its illegal to have weapons in your home. Just to name a few countries, Germany, Holland and Belgium come to mind. In China there are also tragedies where young men starts stabbing children in a classroom. What leads to these kind of atrocities I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the stress of society or the constant need for people to adapt to different economic situations which drives people who are depressed over the limit. Im just grasping at straws here but I do know it hasn't got much to do with gun laws or the United States in general.
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 19 2012 18:32 GMT
#5457
On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:
On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16.

Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians.

I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally.


criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway.


Restricting capacity is ridiculous compared to other concepts.

For example, which of the following would you consider to be more capable of killing?

A: 6 interchangeable 15 round magazines
B: A fixed magazine weapon with a capacity of 15

Sure, if you're really proficient with speedloaders, you can get reload time on a fixed magazine down pretty quick, but it's not as easy as drop mag, insert mag. You can swap to a new mag without even lowering a weapon if it's weight is reasonable.

If you're going to target magazines, you should be demanding fixed magazines, rather than specific capacity. This is just one of the examples I could bring up regarding areas where the things people who don't use guns don't understand what good limitations would actually be.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24673 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 18:35:19
December 19 2012 18:34 GMT
#5458
On December 20 2012 03:27 Warheart wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 01:59 micronesia wrote:
On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16.

Fully automatic guns are almost completely illegal in the USA fyi, including the m16, for civilians.

I like the idea of reducing bullet capacity in legal guns, but I'm not sure how to do it. If everything stays the same except a limit is placed on clip size, then well, it's really easy to make a bigger clip illegally.


criminals do not need to manufacture bigger clips,they are already avaliable in the black market; the point is that if someone who buys legally a weapon goes nuts,he does not have in his hands a gun that can potentially kill 30 people before he even has to reload. someone who buys a gun for self defense won't need a bigger clip anyway.

You should note that most of these mass shootings where the person 'goes nuts' involves days of planning if not more. This is plenty of time to get/make/whatever a clip that suits their purposes. I don't think making large clips illegal would have much of an effect on mass shooting rates/damages, by itself.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Zaqwe
Profile Joined March 2012
591 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-19 18:35:06
December 19 2012 18:34 GMT
#5459
On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Even if you had a magical wand that could make guns disappear--something gun control cannot do, despite the wild fantasy of anti-gun crusaders--there's no saying with certainty that he wouldn't have used other means. To claim you can predict such a thing is disingenuous and completely wrong.

Gun control advocates do not have a very good track record for making predictions as to the outcome of their policies. The "gun free" zone was supposed to keep children safe, wasn't it? Look how that prediction worked out.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Superman? On the contrary, it seems to be yourself who thinks the teachers can ricochet bullets off their skin and protect children with only their bare hands.

On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?

This is amusing, how you children have begun parroting my posts back at me without the slightest understanding of the logic behind them.

This is just the same as using the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense.

I am not surprised by these antics coming from gun control advocates.
DR.Ham
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands621 Posts
December 19 2012 18:35 GMT
#5460
On December 20 2012 03:18 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 20 2012 03:09 Simberto wrote:
As i said, what caused the death of 26 innocent people was NOT that there were no guns in that school, it was that a lunatic could easily get an automatic rifle.

Speculation on what he might have done without one is as futile as speculating how those supermen teachers would have protected the children, guns blazing.

Upon seeing the result of easily available weapons cause the death of 26 innocent people, 20 of them children, what makes you want to keep that, or even expand it? Was it such a great success?


It was a semi automatic rifle that he stole from his mom after failing to get one himself because of gun control. Guns aren't that easily obtainable as your insinuating. Its not really a great success if your not allowed to use your guns in certain areas for no logical reason "gun free zones" are the thing that costs innocent lives the most when atrocities like this happen.

People act like there hasn't been worse massacres in schools because of bombs and that only guns are used to commit mass murder. the horrible stigma behind getting mental health and the systems complete failing to treat anyone who needs it are as much the problem as people who don't lock up their guns well enough.


Not to split hairs, but these are straw-man arguments. Him not explicitly knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles does not invalidate the common sense of the rest of his arguments.

Also, yes, it would have been possible for him to commit a similar atrocity without access to loads of guns, but it certainly does not seem as likely. Making bombs etc is far more difficult (but not impossible) than going into your mom's closet and pulling out a load of guns.

Back on topic, to the pro gun posters:
What about restricting rifles to bolt action / manual reload only? Would they still not be useable for target shooting, hunting etc? Presumably weapons being used for self defense in the home would more likely be pistols anyway, but feel free to correct me if you feel that a rifle is better indoor protection.


Prev 1 271 272 273 274 275 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 4m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Livibee 245
RuFF_SC2 132
Nina 107
Ketroc 28
StarCraft: Brood War
Aegong 118
Icarus 5
ajuk12(nOOB) 3
LuMiX 3
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1062
NeuroSwarm128
Counter-Strike
taco 341
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King74
AZ_Axe54
Other Games
summit1g14846
shahzam1441
Day[9].tv829
hungrybox727
JimRising 463
C9.Mang0263
ViBE193
Maynarde147
Trikslyr81
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2099
BasetradeTV39
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 118
• davetesta51
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki44
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4154
• Rush782
Other Games
• Scarra1392
• Day9tv829
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
8h 4m
OSC
11h 4m
WardiTV European League
14h 4m
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
22h 4m
Epic.LAN
1d 10h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CSO Contender
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
5 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

JPL Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.