| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
iplayBANJO
United States129 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:24 Neneu wrote: Btw there's something wrong when civillians have less prerequisites they have to fulfill in order to get a gun, than a policeman. I disagree. The civilian populations gives power to the police that is realistically unchallengeable in the moment, which means they should be held to much higher standards than civilians. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:30 Neneu wrote: Where were I talking about that? Please point out where. You cannot compare a country that has no firearms at all vs a country where there are already 300 million firearms in half the households nationwide. In order to go from one to the other, you would have to ban all new sales and possession of firearms (ruled unconstitutional), and to take the current ones off circulation you would have to forego both the 4th and 5th amendment (already having trashed the 2nd amendment) to do so. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:33 Nagano wrote: You cannot compare a country that has no firearms at all vs a country where there are already 300 million firearms in half the households nationwide. In order to go from one to the other, you would have to ban all new sales and possession of firearms (ruled unconstitutional), and to take the current ones off circulation you would have to forego both the 4th and 5th amendment (already having trashed the 2nd amendment) to do so. I wasn't talking about that. At all. I weren't talking about comparing countries. I wanted to bury this argument: If someone is REALLY determined to kill a bunch of people, having restricted access to weapons probably wouldn't stop them. Because China kinda proved that wrong, by having very restricted access. The troubles of how to get there aren't a part of what I were talking about. However if you want to go down that lane, you can always do it the same way the Australians did it. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:33 Nagano wrote: You cannot compare a country that has no firearms at all vs a country where there are already 300 million firearms in half the households nationwide. In order to go from one to the other, you would have to ban all new sales and possession of firearms (ruled unconstitutional), and to take the current ones off circulation you would have to forego both the 4th and 5th amendment (already having trashed the 2nd amendment) to do so. Weren't a lot of constitutional rights (or whatever documents) violated when terrorists attacked the US, and government can now do all sorts of things to you. Would it be so different to do the same to stop "domestic" terrorism? Why is it completely off the table to violate gun laws because of terrorism, when many of your privacy rights and right to attorney and fair trial (blabla) have already been violated because of terrorism? | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:41 Cutlery wrote: Weren't a lot of constitutional rights (or whatever documents) violated when terrorists attacked the US, and government can now do all sorts of things to you. Would it be so different to do the same to stop "domestic" terrorism? Why is it completely off the table to violate gun laws because of terrorism, when many of your privacy rights and right to attorney and fair trial (blabla) have already been violated because of terrorism? Why not just throw out the whole constitution then? I'm sorry but I have to call this argument for what it is: idiotic. NDAA passed, might as well finish up by abandoning the rest of the principles! | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20301 Posts
That's not a situation I'd want my children in, and with the lack of mass murdering in schools in places such as the UK (where guns are basically nonexistent, the police force is unarmed in all but extreme cases) it doesn't seem necessary, so why make it that way in the US? | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:47 Cyro wrote: Guns being as legal and relatively uncontrolled as they are in the US has opened the door for the discussion of posting guards at every school armed with automatic weapons. That's not a situation I'd want my children in, and with the lack of mass murdering in schools in places such as the UK (where guns are basically nonexistent, the police force is unarmed in all but extreme cases) it doesn't seem necessary, so why make it that way in the US? I'm sorry but the NRA doesn't speak for what the majority of firearm owners want (the NRA of today is not what it was 50 years ago, and many people think the NRA doesn't even look out for firearm owners' best interests anymore). Automatic weapons? You do realize they've been as good as banned since 1968. All I am saying, and what I feel to be the majority of gun owners I have talked to and have read in forums, is a return to level-headedness. Will a federal AWB do ANYTHING at all to curb such events from happening? No. Then why make the law? Political points. Another time: Tighter screening, mental healthcare, and a media that does not create anti-heros. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9675 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:51 Nagano wrote: I'm sorry but the NRA doesn't speak for what the majority of firearm owners want (the NRA of today is not what it was 50 years ago, and many people think the NRA doesn't even look out for firearm owners' best interests anymore). Automatic weapons? You do realize they've been as good as banned since 1968. All I am saying, and what I feel to be the majority of gun owners I have talked to and have read in forums, is a return to level-headedness. Will a federal AWB do ANYTHING at all to curb such events from happening? No. Then why make the law? Political points. Another time: Tighter screening, mental healthcare, and a media that does not create anti-heros. The media point is interesting. Between them and the way the politicians want to create useless laws, it seems as though everybody is being misdirected. You could be forgiven for getting out your tin foil hat and calling conspiracy on the whole thing. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/12/21 Thought that said it really fucking well about today's press conference. There's a reason even a lot of gun owners think they're off the deep end. | ||
|
Zarrow
7 Posts
People have suggested banning a specific kind of gun to hopefully slow the frequency of these types of crimes. This argument has been slammed down by the ambiguous nature of such laws that are already in existence. The topic then seems to move on to a ban on all guns. I believe this would be the best idea, the U.K. fore example has such a system. As has already been pointed out, this ban would be ruled unconstitutional. So why not change the constitution? If a belief is wrong and illogical you throw it out and move on, regardless of how long a belief has been in effect for. The people of America do not need to throw the whole thing out, simply throw out the damaging parts. Therefore, it seems absurd that you (Nagano) would be against changing the constitution, because in fact it has already been amended at least twice as you have pointed out. I would also like to add that I pay VERY little attention to American politics so if the constitution has been amended more than that, I apologize for incorrect facts. But, the point I wish to make is the fact that it HAS been amended before so why not amend it again? If no people own guns then a gun-related crime is theoretically impossible. The following arguments of recreational use and personal protection seem weak in the face of a theoretical society where there is no gun threat which must be defended against because there are no guns. Now, obviously this is impossible and bad people will find someway to get a weapon somehow. But is that not what the police are for? They are there to protect you. That was why they were created, so you don't have to protect yourself. So that the strong will protect the weak. Not the weak protect themselves will weapons designed for a battlefield (this is meant to mean any weapons that fire at a rate of more than one shot per one trigger pull as was well put a few pages earlier). I also understand, from reading these posts, that apparently the citizens should have the capability to stand up to a totalitarian government with personally owned weapons. This seems absurd in the current state of the world. Most developed countries have moved to democracies and away from autocracies, so unless something goes really bad really quickly, the argument seems not to apply here, although it could be effective if a shift of culture occured. However, it hasn't so the argument should be thrown out as irrelevant for the time being. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:56 Jockmcplop wrote: The media point is interesting. Between them and the way the politicians want to create useless laws, it seems as though everybody is being misdirected. You could be forgiven for getting out your tin foil hat and calling conspiracy on the whole thing. It's not a conspiracy. The news operates on ratings and it's safe to say the networks get a LOT of ratings when they interview 5 year olds asking them what they said in the class that day, or when they depict the shootings step by step. The murderer becomes an anti-hero. They put a priority on the body count. It's really sick. It's what I mean when I say that it contributes heavily to the mass-killing problem. A kid who would have otherwise off'd himself in his parents' basement now sees he can go out blazing, so to speak. Look at this BBC video for reference: | ||
|
X3GoldDot
Malaysia3840 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9675 Posts
On December 22 2012 13:11 Nagano wrote: It's not a conspiracy. The news operates on ratings and it's safe to say the networks get a LOT of ratings when they interview 5 year olds asking them what they said in the class that day, or when they depict the shootings step by step. The murderer becomes an anti-hero. They put a priority on the body count. It's really sick. It's what I mean when I say that it contributes heavily to the mass-killing problem. A kid who would have otherwise off'd himself in his parents' basement now sees he can go out blazing, so to speak. Look at this BBC video for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 Dude props for the charlie brooker, that's my favorite satire. All i am saying is that one could be forgiven for thinking that its a conspiracy, the way that all the rational arguments are buried under hysteria and right wing crazies. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 13:09 Zarrow wrote: I would like to add my voice to this discussion. From reading the last few pages (the past 3-4) it seems as if the issue of whether these crimes will happen is not the issue. It is the frequency that is the issue. People have suggested banning a specific kind of gun to hopefully slow the frequency of these types of crimes. This argument has been slammed down by the ambiguous nature of such laws that are already in existence. The topic then seems to move on to a ban on all guns. I believe this would be the best idea, the U.K. fore example has such a system. As has already been pointed out, this ban would be ruled unconstitutional. So why not change the constitution? If a belief is wrong and illogical you throw it out and move on, regardless of how long a belief has been in effect for. The people of America do not need to throw the whole thing out, simply throw out the damaging parts. Therefore, it seems absurd that you (Nagano) would be against changing the constitution, because in fact it has already been amended at least twice as you have pointed out. I would also like to add that I pay VERY little attention to American politics so if the constitution has been amended more than that, I apologize for incorrect facts. But, the point I wish to make is the fact that it HAS been amended before so why not amend it again? If no people own guns then a gun-related crime is theoretically impossible. The following arguments of recreational use and personal protection seem weak in the face of a theoretical society where there is no gun threat which must be defended against because there are no guns. Now, obviously this is impossible and bad people will find someway to get a weapon somehow. But is that not what the police are for? They are there to protect you. That was why they were created, so you don't have to protect yourself. So that the strong will protect the weak. Not the weak protect themselves will weapons designed for a battlefield (this is meant to mean any weapons that fire at a rate of more than one shot per one trigger pull as was well put a few pages earlier). I also understand, from reading these posts, that apparently the citizens should have the capability to stand up to a totalitarian government with personally owned weapons. This seems absurd in the current state of the world. Most developed countries have moved to democracies and away from autocracies, so unless something goes really bad really quickly, the argument seems not to apply here, although it could be effective if a shift of culture occured. However, it hasn't so the argument should be thrown out as irrelevant for the time being. You have a very well presented argument, so thank you for that. I'll try my best to explain why this would be a horrible thing to do. I'm going to try and address it as simple as I can for the sake that I'm going out to dinner soon. What I can say is this, undoing the 2nd amendment will never, ever happen in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. There are impossible to meet barriers to make this happen, legally, and if not the sole reason is that the populace will never want this to happen. You cannot confiscate all guns. In order to do so, the government would have to completely tear apart the 4th and 5th amendments to make this happen, having already dismantled the 2nd amendment. That's the "you cant ban all guns" reasoning in a nutshell. What is happening now is a federal AWB, which will do nothing but fool the unknowing public into believing the problem is being addressed while the politicians and lawmakers score political points. | ||
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
| ||
|
AmericanNightmare
United States98 Posts
On December 22 2012 11:12 Cloud9157 wrote: So your justification for owning assault weapons is... because you want to spend money? Good god. That may be the lamest "what if" I've ever read in my life. Give the money to charity, invest in something, hell, let it sit in your bank so that your kids/nephews/nieces/whoever has more money if they are in your will. And if that is the best you can come up with, then no, you don't get assault weapons. That was just silly. The irony here is that the only reason why it was suggested to have armed guards in schools was because someone DIDN'T do what was right, and instead chose to shoot 27 people, 20 of which were children. If you had an EXTRA 300k... you could do WHATEVER YOU want to.. If I wanted to I could go to outer space I could.. + Show Spoiler + There is a show on television called Dooms Day Preppers..something like that, my wife loves it..These people are crazy in my opinion. BUT have every justification to own whatever weapons they wish to own.. Because however "crazy" they may seem.. nothing about them gives the aura that they are going to go blasting through customers of a mall.. I assumed you would have picked up that I was a Christian.. my tithe is charity.. my investing would be weapons.. sit in the bank? where the value of me dollar could possibly depreciate? There's no way of knowing the value of the whatever I had planned on saving would have the planned value at the time of it being cashed in. I would feel my child was safe if there were a select group of teachers had concealed weapons on them during school hours.. If I was to be selected to be on a board designing a program like this it would require the teacher to receive training through law enforcement designed to protect as many children as possible.. + Show Spoiler + I assumed you were a reasonable person and learned a lesson I've learned before. Fool me for (could be) hundredth time.. shame on me.. Do me a favor and never let me know what part of the U.S. you are from.. I'm only human and I would automatically judge anyone I met from this point on from the same place base on my opinion of you right now. I don't need to do this.. I'm sorry but I just can't help it.. On December 22 2012 00:56 micronesia wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 22 2012 00:51 AmericanNightmare wrote: I'd give up my right to carry a gun in public if our police could adequately protect the population.. We may be a nation where crime is frequent.. but that should be a stain on U.S. law enforcement.. they very people you say I should surrender my weapons and basically the lives of my families to protect me.. The world you step outside to is very different from what's on the other side of my front door... I'm proud to live in a place where I am given the luxuries of a great life.. A place where the phrase, Innocent until proven guilty, is suppose the mean something. I have a firm belief that this should be a corner of the foundation of our justice system. If I want to own a fully automatic machine gun... or 100 of them... or even a shoulder-fired missile system. I shouldn't be accused of wanting to shoot down planes of spraying rounds willy-nilly towards a crowd.. "Where does it end?" I would say it stops at grenades, tanks, artillery... Law enforcement is not solely (or even mostly) to blame for the amount of crime in the USA. The police are only one piece of it. The laws are created by the legislative branch. What laws are made/unmade affects the crime rate. The executive branch enforces the laws (technically i think police are considered part of this but I will keep them separate for now). The judicial branch interprets the laws. All of these parties have a major hand in how much crime there is, and how many repeat offenders there are. The police are supposed to be pro-active in preventing crime, but there is a limit to what they can do; especially without the full support of the rest of the government. Mostly police respond to crimes rather than prevent them, because it's much harder to prevent crime as a police department than react to it. I will agree the police share a piece of the pie of fault for our crime rate, though. I am sorry for not responding to this first.. I understand that Law Enforcement is not 100% fault.. I blame a majority of the problem on legislation.. but I am never going to agree that the most effective way to solve the problem we have here by punishing people who have done nothing wrong.. LE can prevent crimes by taking illegal weaponry off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.. I would 100% agree with any legislation that allowed them to do this.. UNLESS it infringed on the rights of anyone, who to prior to the events in questions where their rights were infringed upon, who would have been consider reasonably good/productive in society.. We need to be intelligent here... the percent of crimes/stats due to massacres like this are jack squat to the crimes committed by criminals.. So legislation that would prevent a mother from owning firearms to enjoy in her leisure would not be ok in my book.. because I'm not going to assume that every young man with mental problems is going to blow his mothers face off them.. I don't assume that every struggling college student is going to snipe students from a tower.. or handgun people down.. + Show Spoiler + My first gun I purchased for myself was my freshman year of college using federal aid money.. I'm more concerned about lowering statics from violent crimes cause by people who need to do them to exist or profit... not from the people who do them to escape.. while not infringing on the rights of people who like to have a good time without harming others | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 22 2012 13:17 Jockmcplop wrote: Dude props for the charlie brooker, that's my favorite satire. All i am saying is that one could be forgiven for thinking that its a conspiracy, the way that all the rational arguments are buried under hysteria and right wing crazies. Yea, unfortunately if you watch cable news networks you'll see that no one operates on anything I've been saying and what firearm owners know to be true. They always ask why regular citizens should be able to own "military-style" weapons (see how often you hear that phrase, even President Obama uses it), as if "military-style" even means anything legislatively. Watch Piers Morgan on this issue. He fancies himself as a poised urban sophisticate, but he turns to yelling and calling people idiots as his argument when he debates people on this issue (see Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt). I think the quote was, "You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” video I'm pretty liberal and always used to scoff at the "media bias" argument. But when it hits home is when you realize that, holy shit, the media can be pretty insane at times. | ||
|
AmericanNightmare
United States98 Posts
On December 22 2012 12:03 writer22816 wrote: ...are you serious? If you had "faith in people to do what's right" then why the fuck would you even need guns? Dumbest thing I've read today. In case they don't... The dumbest thing I've read today are several post on here.. where people think they fully can comprehend something based solely on something they read and never slightly personal experience.. I've known lots of teacher in my lifetime who I would trust them to look after my child gun or not... If I'd trust them with that much... I don't see why a gun would matter.. people understand that a child left with me will be in the "presence" of firearms.. AND the child will never know it OR be in danger from it.. AND STILL PEOPLE DO IT.. I would gamble my kids life on that the gun the teacher was concealing would be used to protect his life before it would be used haphazardly to kill him or anyone else.. or a crazed persons gun kill him.. I would really do it.. BECAUSE the teachers I either know or known have all demonstrated to be of excellent character.. The gun owners I know have demonstrated to be of excellent character.. A teacher who are proven trustworthy and stable should be allowed to carry. If you are basing this idea on teacher you know/knew .. (I'm assuming from china) then I'm truly sorry for the people who educate(d) you.. | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
Watch from 35:35 on, Jesse Venture destroys the gun control/ban debate. If it's not clear to these people by now after all these arguments, then they simply are just choosing not to. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
The type of person that would shoot up a classroom indiscriminately would have no qualms going to the library, mall, parking lot, daycare center, supermarket or church, instead. Any public place is an opportunity for a psychopath to kill people en masse. You can't disarm everyone, and you certainly can't arm everyone at all times. Edit: glaring typo, lol. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
