|
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 20 2012 06:38 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic 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. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security. I guess you ignored this post. On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%. I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here. I agree. I don't want to go there either. But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter?
In the case of the recent school shooting, the guy was a sheltered middle class kid. If he lived where I lived then he wouldn't even know where to start looking to get a gun. In a similar vein, Anders Breivik (the Norwegian shooter guy) went to the Czech Republic to try and buy guns but found it so difficult that he decided it would be easier to jump through the legal hoops needed to get one in Norway.
|
On December 20 2012 05:55 heliusx wrote:
Instead of arguing over fantasies (complete ban on firearms in the US) and crazy hypotheticals about which weapons can do the most damage why aren't we discussing the logical ways of limiting these incidents? Checks to make sure people who own firearms aren't insane. Laws to ensure firearms are locked away safely so insane people cannot access them(adam lanza). Security to protect children at school. And so on.
Insisting the only way to fix this issue is through some sort of magical removal of firearms from the US is such a dumb and circular argument that has gotten very tiring in this thread. The Australia case should also stop being repeated, the only possible way you could think that is relevant to America is if you have not a damn clue about any of the multitude of factors that make removing guns from American society completely impossible. Criminals already face huge jail time for getting caught with a firearm, what makes you think outlawing firearms will make these people give them up?
Gun control has always been a trap subject for democrats much like what abortion is for republicans. I wouldn't expect anything more then a symbolic thing that will get ignored and be ineffective. Democrats can't seriously go for a handgun ban or hope to have any real success getting all "assault rifles" banned. Companies will find ways around the law and the guns will get out eventually until we're right back were we started.
|
On December 20 2012 06:45 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:24 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 06:19 RedFury wrote:
Let's think this way: guns are made to shoot. So the real question basically is "should people be allowed to shoot other people"?
Put in these terms I think the answer is pretty clear... Yes, very clear. Guns are made to shoot things but not necessarily human things. Please, don't pretend to be naive. Most of people buy guns in name of the self defence thing, which is the real point behind the whole discussion. In this sense I think that no civilian should be allowed to shoot other people even to protect himself. So just bans guns or more likely put way more restrictions.
I'm not being naive. I've owned guns all my life and used them for many things, not once in my 25 years of life have I used them to shoot a human being. Hell I'm sure 99% of civilian owned firearms have never been used to shoot a human. As for not being able to shoot in self defense, should you be able to stab in self defense? I don't see the difference.
|
On December 20 2012 06:45 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:38 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:
[quote]
Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide.
In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security. I guess you ignored this post. On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%. I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here. I agree. I don't want to go there either. But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter? In the case of the recent school shooting, the guy was a sheltered middle class kid. If he lived where I lived then he wouldn't even know where to start looking to get a gun. In a similar vein, Anders Breivik (the Norwegian shooter guy) went to the Czech Republic to try and buy guns but found it so difficult that he decided it would be easier to jump through the legal hoops needed to get one in Norway.
I don't know if you were just asking me to say "Google" or what, so:
Google
Are you that naive that you don't think people don't use Google for even the dumbest things. Even in the Casey Anthony trial, there is now the stir-up of the "what if the authorities had just found her (Or someone she knows) google search of how to strangle babies"
I can think of a dozen ways without even using Google on how to get a gun illegally.
|
You ignored the civil war analogy in favor of this? Yeah no. Try harder.
The civil war was different from an anti occupational popular uprising. It was more along the lines of a traditional war. You can ignore my point but it still stands. The US government with all its resources and technology has declared a war on drugs and they are failing more miserably than any of the failed wars in US history. This is the power of a popular movement.
|
On December 20 2012 06:53 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:45 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:38 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security. I guess you ignored this post. On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%. I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here. I agree. I don't want to go there either. But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter? In the case of the recent school shooting, the guy was a sheltered middle class kid. If he lived where I lived then he wouldn't even know where to start looking to get a gun. In a similar vein, Anders Breivik (the Norwegian shooter guy) went to the Czech Republic to try and buy guns but found it so difficult that he decided it would be easier to jump through the legal hoops needed to get one in Norway. I don't know if you were just asking me to say "Google" or what, so: Google Are you that naive that you don't think people don't use Google for even the dumbest things. Even in the Casey Anthony trial, there is now the stir-up of the "what if the authorities had just found her (Or someone she knows) google search of how to strangle babies" I can think of a dozen ways without even using Google on how to get a gun illegally.
So you google "where to buy illegal guns" and you arrange to meet someone in a car park on the edge of town at night. You then get arrested by the undercover police who you thought were people that were selling you a gun. That's assuming you even have the balls to go to some dark alley and night and meet people who you assume are hardened criminals in the first place.
|
On December 20 2012 06:53 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:45 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:38 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 05:55 KingLol wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that people claiming they need guns for self-defence are actually the ones sacrificing freedom for temporary security. I guess you ignored this post. On December 20 2012 05:38 Dzemoo wrote:
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%. I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here. I agree. I don't want to go there either. But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter? In the case of the recent school shooting, the guy was a sheltered middle class kid. If he lived where I lived then he wouldn't even know where to start looking to get a gun. In a similar vein, Anders Breivik (the Norwegian shooter guy) went to the Czech Republic to try and buy guns but found it so difficult that he decided it would be easier to jump through the legal hoops needed to get one in Norway. I don't know if you were just asking me to say "Google" or what, so: Google Are you that naive that you don't think people don't use Google for even the dumbest things. Even in the Casey Anthony trial, there is now the stir-up of the "what if the authorities had just found her (Or someone she knows) google search of how to strangle babies" I can think of a dozen ways without even using Google on how to get a gun illegally.
And i, as a sheltered middle class german, couldn't think of a single one. I wouldn't even know where to start. I really, really doubt that i could get one from google. I would probably have to get involved with some sort of organized crime, and i have no idea where to start. I assume i could go into some shady area of the town and ask random people, but i doubt that that will be very successful.
The point is that it is very, very hard to get a gun, legally and illegally, in most European countries. This seems to be something that is not very clear apparently.
|
On December 20 2012 05:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic 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. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. This topic has been discussed to death within this thread already, with JingleHell doing quite a nice job of pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think that citizen gun ownership means jack shit when compared to military equipment and practice. Only backwater, Michigan Militia types who likely harbor some sort of deep seated hatred of those different from themselves think that their precious AR-15 would do anything against the government. In fact, the mindset of a mass murderer and that of a gun-clinging, anti-government nut are likely rather similar. Edit: I mean no offense towards Michiganders......ok maybe a little. Go Bucks 
You just trolling now. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, need I go on?
Afghanistan fought back against the Soviets and have been fighting off the USA for over 10 years now.How is that working out for ya? Biggest military, most advanced weapons, can't beat a bunch of militia.
Wars are not won with guns and armaments, they are fought by them but not won by them. Read art of war.
|
On December 20 2012 07:00 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 06:53 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:45 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:38 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:34 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:23 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:18 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 06:15 jacosajh wrote:On December 20 2012 06:01 KingLol wrote:On December 20 2012 05:56 jacosajh wrote:
[quote]
I guess you ignored this post.
[quote]
I read the post. It's not exactly compelling evidence: it's easy to cherry-pick stats to support your point. Similarly to that poster's point about Texas murder rates, if crime were to be constant for a year and then decrease, you would be able to say "the rate at which crime decreased increased by infinity percent in the last year!". Ok, let's scratch the facts and statistics if you want. Tell me, if you were going to shoot up location A or B, which one would you go too if you knew A has a high percentage of armed people B are all defenseless I'm surprised this isn't basic common sense. Obviously location B. This doesn't actually help your point though, because banning guns is aimed at preventing the hypothetical "me" in this situation from having a gun in the first place. So this doesn't have an impact on taking away other people's self-defense, and thereby possibly increasing the chances this happens? What the fuck? I'm trying really hard man, but it's difficult. I don't understand what about your logic makes you believe that someone crazy enough to fucking shoot 20-something kids is going to obey the law, meanwhile a hypothetical ban on guns making his would-be victims defenseless would prevent this from happening. Furthermore, you reasoned that "oh yeah, okay, so a gun can kill moar people moar faster so a ban on guns is good because it means less people would die." So if one(or more) of those teachers had a gun of their own there's no way this could've ended sooner and thereby lessening the deaths as well? It's not a case of the gunman deciding to obey the law, it's a case of making it hard for him to get a gun. Doesn't matter how desperately he wants to go and shoot people if he can't get a gun. Yes, if a teacher had a gun then he/she could've shot the gunman but it's better if the gunman can't get a gun to begin with (then nobody dies). Whether you think arming teachers is a sensible idea or not is an entirely different discussion though and I'm not about to open that can of worms here. I agree. I don't want to go there either. But I guess you think that someone who is willing to kill 20 something kids is willing to give up once he can't get a gun. If he was prepared to die via suicide, you don't think he was prepared to get a gun via blackmarket or some other crazy ludicrous method I can't even think of? I mean, yeah I want a bazooka as much as the next GI-JOE-Wanna-be kid; I'm just going to shoot it off in the woods where no one will ever see. But I'm not going to even attempt to get one because I'm afraid of the legal implications on the rest of my life. But I have nothing to live for, what does it matter? In the case of the recent school shooting, the guy was a sheltered middle class kid. If he lived where I lived then he wouldn't even know where to start looking to get a gun. In a similar vein, Anders Breivik (the Norwegian shooter guy) went to the Czech Republic to try and buy guns but found it so difficult that he decided it would be easier to jump through the legal hoops needed to get one in Norway. I don't know if you were just asking me to say "Google" or what, so: Google Are you that naive that you don't think people don't use Google for even the dumbest things. Even in the Casey Anthony trial, there is now the stir-up of the "what if the authorities had just found her (Or someone she knows) google search of how to strangle babies" I can think of a dozen ways without even using Google on how to get a gun illegally. And i, as a sheltered middle class german, couldn't think of a single one. I wouldn't even know where to start. I really, really doubt that i could get one from google. I would probably have to get involved with some sort of organized crime, and i have no idea where to start. I assume i could go into some shady area of the town and ask random people, but i doubt that that will be very successful. The point is that it is very, very hard to get a gun, legally and illegally, in most European countries. This seems to be something that is not very clear apparently.
It's probably worth expanding on this as well and pointing out that even for the hardcore criminal element, it's actually getting live ammunition that's the main problem, since it can't be disassembled and disguised as easily as gun parts.
|
On December 20 2012 06:54 Mallard86 wrote:The civil war was different from an anti occupational popular uprising. It was more along the lines of a traditional war. You can ignore my point but it still stands. The US government with all its resources and technology has declared a war on drugs and they are failing more miserably than any of the failed wars in US history. This is the power of a popular movement.
So you think it would be a case of "you haven't killed us so we've won", rather than "we won by force and made shit the way we want it."
Yes, I'm thinking shooting war, because realistically, it would be required if you were trying to do more than say "I'm resisting" and survive. Escaping and not needing to escape are drastically different scenarios.
|
On December 19 2012 09:20 Shinobi1982 wrote:
Here's my opinion for what it's worth..
If you live on a farm or a house where no other nearby residential houses are you should be allowed to get permission to have a gun for self defense.
However if you live in a city, no f*ckin way you should be allowed to have a gun permission. Here's the thing with a decent security alarm system you will scare off 95/100 of burglars if they try to break in (at comparable costs as owning a gun). Even if they get into the house the alarm will wake-up neighbors and chances that the burglar will do anything stupid are slim to none.
If you are someone who has something valuable to lose from burglary chances are you will deal with a professional (or a team of professionals) and guess what your gun is not gonna help you here either.
Here's the problem with your theory. People in rural districts are not around near as many people. They also tend not to be as desperate as those in the inner cities. Thus, people in the inner cities are much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and need the self defense in the form of a gun much more than those living on farms do.
|
On December 20 2012 06:52 heliusx wrote:
I'm not being naive. I've owned guns all my life and used them for many things, not once in my 25 years of life have I used them to shoot a human being. Hell I'm sure 99% of civilian owned firearms have never been used to shoot a human. As for not being able to shoot in self defense, should you be able to stab in self defense? I don't see the difference.
For many things like?
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
|
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
|
On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
I have the impression that there is a connection between the two bolded parts. And to name a few. Those are all the things I can think off. And for none of these you need a pumpgun. (pump action shotgun w/e)
|
On December 20 2012 06:29 jdseemoreglass wrote:Are 24,500 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drink alcohol? Are 40,000 deaths a year the price we pay for the freedom to drive cars? The answer is obviously yes. And so it is not about statistics which people bring up so often, it is simply about public prejudice against guns. When people think of guns, they see what the media has shown them, which is Sandy Hook. They don't see a purpose, a value, all they see is danger. And for that reason they feel justified in taking away that freedom from the people who do see value and purpose in the right to own them.
I think you bring up a more interesting point than you might have intended. First of all the alcohol related deaths are self inflicted, you drink yourself to death, not someone else.
Cars and driving can however often inflict injury towards others, but instead of saying 'cars dont kill people, drivers do' you first of all require to take training and pass a test in order to drive legally. While driving, you need to follow several laws or you might lose your right to drive. Car safety itself is constantly being improved, starting out with the safety belt and moving on to cars that via radar and cameras can start breaking for you if you're closing in on a pedestrian too fast.
Looking at usa today its not very likely to have guns vanishing any time soon and there's no way a ban would work effectively with the amount of weapons already circulating. However, restricting access is not the same thing as a ban. Any responsible gun-owner should educate themselves sufficiently in gun safety issues and both handle and store their weapon safely.
In sweden only licensed hunters and members of the police force are allowed to have any kind of weapons in their home and the overall access to weapon is extremely limited. Apart from having a licence you also need to keep your weapons safely locked away in a certified weapon locker.
This works extremely well as there are very few weapons circulating to start with. You dont really need a weapon to defend yourself as there's nobody else having one either. This can obviously not be applied to the states where your access to weapons is greatly increased but its also a bit beside the point, I'm only once again pointing out the fact that in some parts of the world getting a weapon in the first place is extremely difficult  .
However, anyone advocating their right to wear weapons should be concerned about how other people around them also handle their weapons. Simply restricting access to the point where training in gun safety along with the means to properly storage the guns bought should be a no-brainer, regardless of your stand on gun-ownership in the first place.
|
On December 20 2012 07:44 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. I have the impression that there is a connection between the two bolded parts. And to name a few. Those are all the things I can think off. And for none of these you need a pumpgun. (pump action shotgun w/e)
Good luck shooting skeet or hunting small birds without a shotgun. My point isn't about how many shooting sports there are as you are trying to steer the discussion into for some reason it's about the fact that there are legitimate uses for firearms besides shooting humans. You're getting increasingly desperate in your attempts to retort peoples posts.
|
On December 20 2012 07:49 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:44 Hryul wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. I have the impression that there is a connection between the two bolded parts. And to name a few. Those are all the things I can think off. And for none of these you need a pumpgun. (pump action shotgun w/e) Good luck shooting skeet or hunting small birds without a shotgun. My point isn't about how many shooting sports there are as you are trying to steer the discussion into for some reason it's about the fact that there are legitimate uses for firearms besides shooting humans.
I was talking about pumpguns, not shotguns.
I was merely criticising the many part. It would also be cynical to value your hobby of target practicing over human life,don't you agree?
|
On December 20 2012 07:49 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:44 Hryul wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. I have the impression that there is a connection between the two bolded parts. And to name a few. Those are all the things I can think off. And for none of these you need a pumpgun. (pump action shotgun w/e) Good luck shooting skeet or hunting small birds without a shotgun. My point isn't about how many shooting sports there are as you are trying to steer the discussion into for some reason it's about the fact that there are legitimate uses for firearms besides shooting humans. You're getting increasingly desperate in your attempts to retort peoples posts.
Shouldn't the question be if the chance to shoot at animals or take part in shooting competitions is worth the backlash?
To be honest I'd rather have a country without shooting tournaments than a country with 20 dead children more.
EDIT: Hryul ninja'd me, guess we had the same thought.
|
On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
|
On December 20 2012 07:54 Hryul wrote:
I was talking about pumpguns, not shotguns.
A pumpgun is a shotgun.
On December 20 2012 07:54 Hryul wrote:
I was merely criticising the many part. It would also be cynical to value your hobby of target practicing over human life,don't you agree?
Do you really want to discuss things people should give up in the spirit of saving lives? You won't win that argument. All you're doing at this point is showing how little you know about anything firearm related. Maybe it's time to take a break from this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
