|
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 22 2012 05:51 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:46 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:On December 22 2012 05:08 YumYumGranola wrote:
One thing I don't understand is how many Christians are able to rationalize gun ownership and stand your ground laws with their religious beliefs. Jesus tells us that the greatest form of strength is to not repay evil with evil, and to forgive our enemies. Therefore keeping a gun to defend yourself against an aggressor is really the greatest form of weakness that a Christian can have, since essentially what you're saying is that you value your temporary Earthly existence more than following the teachings of Christ and being with him in eternity. Christians have a moral obligation towards non-violence or retreat when attacked or threatened.
I mean, non-violence was basically the WHOLE point of Jesus, or at least the really revolutionary idea that he preached. That's the whole irony of him being the Messiah: At the time the Messiah was supposed to be a great warrior king who would free Israel, and instead what they got was Jesus telling them to pay Caesar his taxes. Of course in actuality he did free his followers by showing them the way into heaven, which is the only nation Christians should be concerned with. Even as he was about to be brutally tortured and killed, he told Peter to put away his sword, and instead forgave the soldiers who were about to nail him to a tree and leave him to die.
The irony of Christian militarism extends into how we view national security as well. If Christ were in charge after 9/11 we never would have gone to war. Period. We would have forgiven the people who attacked us. Sure lesser minds might interpret this as weakness, but the righteous would understand that not abandoning your principles in times of crisis is the greatest strength there is. Those who push for newer shinier weapons capable of killing more and more people more any more efficiently are the farthest things from Christians, and those who accept collateral damage as a necessary evil of war to keep us safe are even worse.
I should qualify this by stating that I have extreme respect for our soldiers. They are putting themselves on the line for others, and that is one of the greatest forms of selflessness that can exist. What I'm saying is that those who expect others to put themselves in harms way and to do harm to our enemies are not worthy of God's glory. Why pick at Christians? I don't believe in god, but I will not give up my right to own a rifle. ] Do you think citizens of other countries should have the right to own rifles?
I think other countries should let their citizens decide if they want the right to own rifles (firearms).
|
Gotta love the NRA. Looking forward to schools surrounded by guys with guns where the children get taught all about how they live in the land of the free.
|
On December 22 2012 06:29 Monsen wrote:
Gotta love the NRA. Looking forward to schools surrounded by guys with guns where the children get taught all about how they live in the land of the free.
Did you not see Robocop. That is the future NRA hopes for 
|
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant
|
On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant
Only, the spirit of the 2nd amendment seems to be that civilians should be able to stand up to an oppressive military regime more than protect trinkets like property or simply practice their aim. How can they do that without some heavy artillery?
Also, fully automatic weapons are pretty much prohibited everywhere. Most people who own fully automatic guns have had them illegally modified and don't use them exclusively for self defense / hunting / target practice.
Politicians should debate about how to fix the downward spiral of socio-economic disparity and improve quality of life without the need to further reduce rights & freedoms that are only minimally responsible for impacting the two.
|
Now that people are getting Kevlar backpacks and/or vests, firearms may no longer be sufficient for self defence. How do you defend yourself vs heavily armored cars and/or people, or government tanks (e.g tyranny)?
This self defence issue is important. The fear of shootings is making people take measures which diminishes the effectiveness of self defence through the use of firearms. Kevlar has to be banned. This way school children also don't have to live every-day school days dressed in Kevlar or wearing Kevlar backpacks. It sounds awful, everyday having to consider the worst case scenarios as a child. Just ban Kevlar -- out of sight, out of mind.
|
No they should let kids pack firearms so they can effectively defend themselves
|
So the NRA wants to arm the populace to prevent a police state, but want armed guards patrolling schools?
|
On December 22 2012 07:04 bonifaceviii wrote:
So the NRA wants to arm the populace to prevent a police state, but want armed guards patrolling schools?
Armed guards already patrol plenty of high schools. Why shouldn't they do the same to other schools?
|
On December 22 2012 00:58 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 00:43 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 13:05 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 12:45 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 11:38 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 09:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it.
If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun. "The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men. It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life. Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue? So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time? In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person. You are saying there is no way to discover/treat this issue before hand? So then why is it that some countries have prevailing instances of suicide than others? Certain societal/cultural norms yield higher risks of suicide -- this is a common understanding in psychology and other professions. If you don't believe there is a cure/preventive way of treating potential suicides, what the hell is the point of "discovering" people who failed to commit suicide via drugs? Are we going to assign people to watch them 24/7 for the rest of their life? Even your logic implies there is some way to treat this, so why not start with that? And your solution DOES NOT address the issue I brought up in another post. Not every one in suicide is looking for a quick out. Read my post and then tell me where did I say or imply things you are accusing me of saying. I never said it is never possible to discover the issue beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Cure does not equal preventative treatment. Preventative treatment means beforehand, cure means whenever. So again you are lying about what I said as I never said anything about not believing in cure. If the person fails the attempt we can cure him since we know now that he has a problem. This is impossible in many cases to know beforehand even using all epidemiological data about risk factors, because those are statistical and thus cannot tell you exactly who actually suffers from what. It only allows you some measure of targeted preventative actions, but it will never allow you to accurately pinpoint all of those people (I am talking never as in in a near to medium future). Also I never presented it as a solution to anything I just pointed out that if guns are not present, many people attempting suicide can be saved and no preventative action will have similar effect. Is it a good policy in general ? That is another question as then we need to consider issue other than only mental health. But purely from the standpoint of suicides, getting rid of the guns from society would save a lot of people. You are not understanding what I'm saying. So to make it simple for you: Even if a policy with no guns saves people with a deeper issue, what's the point? If there is a way to prevent these things besides taking away guns, why not try it? It seems it is you who does not understand as that objection makes absolutely no sense considering what I wrote. To reiterate : No such way exists for many of those cases as there is no possible action before the suicide attempt and after it they are dead due to presence of guns. There is nothing that you can do as those cases are inevitable without some technology that we can only dream about for a long time. And in presence of guns those inevitable cases will have high mortality. I don't know if you are just running around in circles on purpose so you don't have to admit you don't have an answer or you really don't understand. -I am not disagreeing that someone who attempting suicide by a gun is going to have a higher success rate. You would to dumb to argue with this. -What is the merit of "saving" someone temporarily by taking a "higher rate of success" item from them if you can't help them in the long-term? Unless you believe that there is something inherently good about just saving someone temporarily. I don't think you believe this, so your logic implies there is merit in saving someone because you can help rehabilitate them. In this case, why not start with "preventive rehabilitation," whatever that is? -As for "early detection" of suicide attempts, I already addressed this. Some cultures yield higher suicide attempts than others. There is a reason for this. Of course, we don't have it all figured out -- and that is the point. We need to try. We might not even have to "detect it early" if we can just help fix the dumb shit in our culture that makes people want to commit suicide in the first place. Just because you take the tool away doesn't mean someone isn't going to come up with a tool of their own. Ok now I am sure that you cannot read. I already said that cure DOES NOT EQUAL prevention. So the merit of saving the person temporarily is in the fact that after that we know there is a problem and can possibly cure that person. We cannot cure him beforehand as we do not know he has a problem. Is that simple logic that I already explained too complicated for you still ? EDIT: Large percentage of suicides have internal triggers, you cannot prevent them by changing "culture". Again not in the near future.
It seems you don't have a good understanding of social science and psychology. If culture plays a big impact in acceptable and unacceptable social norms (and it is widely accepted that it does) we are not talking about a cure like some sort of magical pill. If we make what things that should be acceptable acceptable and things unacceptable unacceptable we can help fix a lot of this garbage. Many professions are based on this foundation. If your last sentence is right it makes those professions moot.
|
On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant
I agree with this, but it's worth noting that the push as of right now is not to ban automatic weapons, but even semi. Should Ar-15 and Ak 47's have fully automatic features? Thats what should be up for debate. Instead, a lot of people want to ban Ar-15's and Ak47's altogether
|
On December 22 2012 07:00 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant Only, the spirit of the 2nd amendment seems to be that civilians should be able to stand up to an oppressive military regime more than protect trinkets like property or simply practice their aim. How can they do that without some heavy artillery? Also, fully automatic weapons are pretty much prohibited everywhere. Most people who own fully automatic guns have had them illegally modified and don't use them exclusively for self defense / hunting / target practice. Politicians should debate about how to fix the downward spiral of socio-economic disparity and improve quality of life without the need to further reduce rights & freedoms that are only minimally responsible for impacting the two.
I should have included the term "semi-automatic" somewhere in my post as well. Anything that fires more than 1 bullet per trigger-pull is more powerful than a civilian needs.
As far as the fighting off oppressive military regimes, a civilian population should have more money, man-power, and intimate knowledge with the surrounding area that I am not concerned about how we would fightback in this possible scenario. I am not comfortable with handing out tanks to people because "you know... it could happen..."
|
I will always advocate for stricter laws and free gun zones everywhere I go, especially in America.
|
On December 22 2012 07:20 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 06:48 Jermstuddog wrote:
I have no problem with people owning guns, but after a debate with a coworker today, I just feel like typing it out here:
There is no need for a civilian population to own anything with any form of automatic or burst firing capabilities. For the extent of civilian purposes: "one trigger pull, one bullet" should be more than enough to: protect yourself/your loved ones/your property from unsavory aggressors, to hunt, to take part in recreational activities like shooting ranges, or any other reasonable use of a gun I can think of as a civilian. As far as compact clips etc, I would not put that on the same level as automated weaponry, but do not see a reasonable need for civilian personnel to be carrying these either.
I would consider myself a rather liberal person, but I understand the desire for people to own their own weapons, and don't see an inherent issue with it.
The only reason why I would consider automated weaponry/compact clips any different is because there is no functional use for those things outside of war. When defending your personal things, you want to fire one or a few shots to scare away the attackers. When hunting, you want to fire one or a few shots to take down your target animal. When at a shooting range, you are usually judging marksmanship, not bullets-per-minute. Any weapon modification that causes multiple shots per trigger pull or extended shooting without reloading would be exclusively useful in assaulting hostile targets in an aggressive fashion with the goal of killing the target and/or suppressing return fire.
I'd like it much more if our politicians could be debating over things like this, instead of this retarded "guns" vs "no guns" conversation we get to hear about.
/rant I agree with this, but it's worth noting that the push as of right now is not to ban automatic weapons, but even semi. Should Ar-15 and Ak 47's have fully automatic features? Thats what should be up for debate. Instead, a lot of people want to ban Ar-15's and Ak47's altogether
And I agree with this.
When I was in the military, we would rarely use the burst fire option on our rifles, even in war scenarios. What the hell does a civilian need to shoot 3 bullets per trigger-pull for?
|
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal.
|
I can also see the argument against handguns, but I wouldn't exactly fight that fight either.
I think rifles are far better recreational, hunting, and protecting weaponry than handguns are.
Handguns just bring compact firepower into urban areas with no other benefit compared to a rifle other than easier concealment and indoor shooting. Both features adding inherent danger to society rather than reducing it.
But again, I wouldn't fight that fight, keep your handguns if you want.
|
On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal.
There is something inherently wrong with loading school full of children with adults full of concealed weapons...
If you don't see that, I don't even know where to begin.
Just thinking about my own high school experience, I personally saw students get in fist-fights with teachers at least 5-10 times.
How many of those would end up with somebody shot if the teacher was packing heat?
|
On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. There is something inherently wrong with loading school full of children with adults full of concealed weapons... If you don't see that, I don't even know where to begin.
inherently wrong? It comes from our constitutional rights, and it is in the name of defense and protection. Children will not even be aware of concealed weapons. You just show me you have no faith in humanity, and believe that we are not capable of acting responsibly with justice and peace in mind. However, I believe that with some adequate training, simple psych evals or background checks we can act responsibly as a society to stop violence, because cops can't.
|
On December 22 2012 07:31 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal. There is something inherently wrong with loading school full of children with adults full of concealed weapons... If you don't see that, I don't even know where to begin. Just thinking about my own high school experience, I personally saw students get in fist-fights with teachers at least 5-10 times. How many of those would end up with somebody shot if the teacher was packing heat?
You can't start concealing handguns in schools. It's not feasible or responsible. A teacher has to do 5 things and watch 30 children at the same time. Having a gun in the drawer or on person requires full time attention and eyes-on. Any one of the 60 small hands might be anywhere at any time, and you simply can't afford to slip up. It's impossible for a teacher to be responsible for a firearm.
So many times I had to leave the classroom unsupervised because someone needed a book, or to print a sheet, or someone was asking for help and I had to leave the blackboard/drawers to help someone with a math problem.
One slip-up and several lives are ruined.
Now consider how many teachers and how many school days there are. This is hardly a solution.
|
On December 22 2012 07:28 biology]major wrote:
why waste a cop at every school, just teach volunteers (staff and teachers) with carry permits the basics to guard schools. The whole point of "concealed" carry is so that the weapon is completely hidden, and people actually don't know about it UNTIL shit goes down. You would literally need a cop in perfect position in every entrance to prevent these catastrophic acts from occurring. NRA is getting a lot of flack, mostly because they are guarding their own financial interests, but ironically they are right. A good guy with a gun is what is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun. Unfortunately cops are useless and are almost always out of reach to actually do anything. Their job is to respond and report, more than it is to "save" the day. A world where people are willing to be educated and defend themselves is the absolute worst kind for a criminal.
I don't think it's a waste. The area I went to school in rapides parish louisiana funded armed police in every school with a half cent sales tax that raises 12million a year. There hasn't been a shooting like ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
