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 24 2012 03:24 Sjokola wrote: I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
OK.. so then you are suggesting.. that since, in your mind, I MIGHT not "realistically" be able to stand my ground with even modern weaponry.. I should just live on my knees and allow someone to oppress me?
If you could not make an impact an when a foreign power would invade the US (which will not happen (in our lifetime at the least)) do you still think it's worth all the death, murder and killing that is happening and being possible because of the wide spread of guns?
I like you... First you come out with a 100%.. (which will never happen)... then your rationality hit you.. (in our lifetime at the least) You allowed like a .5% chance..because smart people know.. there's always a chance
I couldn't honestly answer your question until it's the end of my lifetime.. I'm barely through a quarter of it (hopefully)... Should something happen to the U.S. and our gun actually needed to repel such an invasion.. then yes.. The right to own guns would have been very much worth it..
But as of right now.. I can't give you a yes or a no.. can I get back to you when I'm dying? I tell you honestly.. I don't want innocent people to die at the hands of crazies.. but I don't wanna punish people who haven't done anything wrong..
why thank you. I try to be rational and reasonable. What you said what actually true. At first when I was typing it I thought: the US wil never be invaded. Then I thought I can never be sure eventually if the US exists long enough they wil get invaded at some point. But back to my point. I feel like there is an evil in the US (lots of gun violence) only for the possibility of another evil (tyranal gouvernment). Is it worth it? I can't defend myself in case of a home invasion of robbery but I refuse to have things in my house disigned only to kill other human beings.
I can't change the world but if everyone would think like that and act accordingly there would be a lot less violence. I can only start with myself. I don't want to sound preachy but I think I mightbe just doing that.
Just for context: I live in a nice neighbourhood in a civilized country. I have been assaulted a few times but noting major so I don't what it's like in big US cities
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA.
No, they don't. Refer to legitimate criminological sources rather than politically biased ones, and you'll quickly discover that the United States is a major outlier (among first-world nations) in terms of all types of violent crime, not just gun violence. The reasons why are complex, ranging from wealth inequality and population demographics to the war on drugs, but gun control is most certainly not a solution. Local governments in America which have outlawed firearms do not actually see any statistically significant decrease in violent crime.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
If you don't understand what a constitution is, or what it's purpose is, please refrain from making bullshit arguments about it.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
Shitty strawman. No one is arguing that we shouldn't change anything. Those of us who understand the facts are simply pointing out that outlawing firearms is not the solution.
1. Well, I'm not, at least not intentionally, looking at political bias. But I also tried to rougly base my argument on logic. If fewer people had guns, wouldn't that lead to fewer people dying from guns?
Two key problems.
1. Outlawing firearms doesn't necessarily mean that the people who kill with guns will have reduced access. It primarily means that law-abiding citizens will have lower access to guns, whereas people who commit gun crimes generally obtain them illegally anyway.
2. People who commit gun violence are trying to commit violence anyway. Even if you take away the gun part of the equation, this doesn't change the fact that they are trying to hurt or kill someone in the first place. There are plenty of means to do so, ranging from stabbing or beating someone, or simply hitting them with a car. In other words, America has a violence problem, and this would be true even if Americans were reduced to stabbing each other with sharpened toothbrushes.
On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote: 2. How have I even argued WHAT a constitution is. And please tell me how I'm wrong, not that I'm wrong. You gain no credibility just by being you.
Referring to the constitution as though it is a religious fanatic's bible is a fundamental misunderstanding of American law. If you don't understand why you're wrong, you don't even have the basic understanding to have this conversation in the first place. It's like an uneducated child trying to argue about theroetical physics. At least do some basic reading before spouting ignorance.
On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote: 3. Assuming you've already posted exactly what you think should be done instead, please link me to that post.
Here. You can also easily read through my post history in this thread by clicking on my profile.
I'm not going to say that I agree with everything that Newt Gingrich says in this speech but the first 10-15 min of it gives a well spoken summation of the context of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I've read quite a few comments from people outside the US that admittedly say that don't have an American perspective so hopefully this helps them understand the majority of our population's feelings towards the 2nd amendment. (by majority I do not mean support the NRA but the 2nd amendment itself)
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA.
No, they don't. Refer to legitimate criminological sources rather than politically biased ones, and you'll quickly discover that the United States is a major outlier (among first-world nations) in terms of all types of violent crime, not just gun violence. The reasons why are complex, ranging from wealth inequality and population demographics to the war on drugs, but gun control is most certainly not a solution. Local governments in America which have outlawed firearms do not actually see any statistically significant decrease in violent crime.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible.
If you don't understand what a constitution is, or what it's purpose is, please refrain from making bullshit arguments about it.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing.
Shitty strawman. No one is arguing that we shouldn't change anything. Those of us who understand the facts are simply pointing out that outlawing firearms is not the solution.
1. Well, I'm not, at least not intentionally, looking at political bias. But I also tried to rougly base my argument on logic. If fewer people had guns, wouldn't that lead to fewer people dying from guns?
Two key problems.
1. Outlawing firearms doesn't necessarily mean that the people who kill with guns will have reduced access. It primarily means that law-abiding citizens will have lower access to guns, whereas people who commit gun crimes generally obtain them illegally anyway.
2. People who commit gun violence are trying to commit violence anyway. Even if you take away the gun part of the equation, this doesn't change the fact that they are trying to hurt or kill someone in the first place. There are plenty of means to do so, ranging from stabbing or beating someone, or simply hitting them with a car. In other words, America has a violence problem, and this would be true even if Americans were reduced to curb stomping each other.
On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote: 2. How have I even argued WHAT a constitution is. And please tell me how I'm wrong, not that I'm wrong. You gain no credibility just by being you.
Referring to the constitution as though it is a religious fanatic's bible is a fundamental misunderstanding of American law. If you don't understand why you're wrong, you don't even have the basic understanding to have this conversation in the first place. It's like an uneducated child trying to argue about theroetical physics. At least do some basic reading before spouting ignorance.
On December 24 2012 09:36 XsebT wrote: 3. Assuming you've already posted exactly what you think should be done instead, please link me to that post.
Here. You can also easily read through my post history in this thread by clicking on my profile.
1. "Doesn't necessarily mean that the people who kill with guns will have reduced access". If guns are outlawed, less are produced, and it is necessarily harder to get hold of one. 2. I was not saying your constitution is in any way compareable with a religious text. I'm saying that the arguments for the two look a lot like each other and neither add anything of substance to this discussion. 3. So, as I understand it, you simply advocate further regulation. Sure, I just feel like saving a step because I just don't see why anyone would need a gun - and anything that will reduce the production of guns is in my eyes a step in the right direction. It is, after all, made for killing.
On December 24 2012 07:54 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 24 2012 07:25 Sjokola wrote:
On December 24 2012 03:24 Sjokola wrote: I think that even with heavier weaponry civilians couldn't do anything substantial. Untrained, unorganised, and still w/o tanks real AA. You could only stop an invader from keeping you occupied but not from advancing to f.e. the capital.
OK.. so then you are suggesting.. that since, in your mind, I MIGHT not "realistically" be able to stand my ground with even modern weaponry.. I should just live on my knees and allow someone to oppress me?
If you could not make an impact an when a foreign power would invade the US (which will not happen (in our lifetime at the least)) do you still think it's worth all the death, murder and killing that is happening and being possible because of the wide spread of guns?
I like you... First you come out with a 100%.. (which will never happen)... then your rationality hit you.. (in our lifetime at the least) You allowed like a .5% chance..because smart people know.. there's always a chance
I couldn't honestly answer your question until it's the end of my lifetime.. I'm barely through a quarter of it (hopefully)... Should something happen to the U.S. and our gun actually needed to repel such an invasion.. then yes.. The right to own guns would have been very much worth it..
But as of right now.. I can't give you a yes or a no.. can I get back to you when I'm dying? I tell you honestly.. I don't want innocent people to die at the hands of crazies.. but I don't wanna punish people who haven't done anything wrong..
why thank you. I try to be rational and reasonable. What you said what actually true. At first when I was typing it I thought: the US wil never be invaded. Then I thought I can never be sure eventually if the US exists long enough they wil get invaded at some point. But back to my point. I feel like there is an evil in the US (lots of gun violence) only for the possibility of another evil (tyranal gouvernment). Is it worth it? I can't defend myself in case of a home invasion of robbery but I refuse to have things in my house disigned only to kill other human beings.
I can't change the world but if everyone would think like that and act accordingly there would be a lot less violence. I can only start with myself. I don't want to sound preachy but I think I mightbe just doing that.
Just for context: I live in a nice neighbourhood in a civilized country. I have been assaulted a few times but noting major so I don't what it's like in big US cities
I own guns for what could be considered a stupid reason.. it's an arrogant reason.. I own guns because it's my right to own them.. Is it worth it? I believe so.. I've said I don't want to see innocent people die because of a crazy person, but I've seen what can happen if you allow authority to run around unchecked.
If I could describe it in percentages.. It's literally a .5% chance that I believe the gov. might turn against me.. I believe I'm more likely to die by a stupid driver than a man with a gun.
I 100% support you in your belief that you don't need a gun.. and I also believe that I really don't need a gun, but I think it's nice to have around.. just in case.
For context on me.. I've said before I live in TX right near Houston.. I actually live in a place that is consistently in or in contention for 'best place to live'.. (a setback to this is the cops are dicks) I've been on the wrong end of a barrel 3 times (once in Charlotte, NC and twice in Houston), but I've never tried my luck by trying to shot the people.. I love where I live and wouldn't want to live anywhere but here (maybe Washington St.)
On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote: Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu
The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights.
On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote: Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu
The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights.
Seriously.
"When I was five I learned kung-fu."
That's cool, when I was five I learned how to shoot a gun.
For the past 15 years, gun homicide rates have been falling
Gun numbers top pre-Port Arthur levels By Ian Townsend Updated Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:37pm AEDT
More than a decade after the horrific Port Arthur Massacre, gun ownership is on the rise in Australia, but experts say this resurgence is highlighting serious problems with the current regulation and registration system.
In the 15 years since Martin Bryant killed 35 people at the popular Tasmanian tourist site, the flow of firearms into Australia has eclipsed the amount recovered in the government funded buy-back scheme.
Last financial year alone Australians imported more than 85,000 firearms, including 44,000 rifles, 12,000 shotguns and nearly 20,000 handguns, and research by Radio National’s Background Briefing program has revealed a resurging interest in guns and hunting
“I would say about 80 per cent of our membership are hunters,” Tim Bannister, from the 134,000-strong Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA), said.
“We’ve seen a change of the demographic. So we’re seeing younger members, we’re seeing women. Once upon a time it was perhaps older men, but now we’re seeing a real mix, which is really good.”
The new interest in shooting is reflected in increasing gun club memberships and long waiting lists for the mandatory firearm safety courses.
“We hold a safety course here once a month, but we could virtually do a safety course of about 15 people once a week,” Ron Dixon, president of the SSAA gun club at Ipswich, west of Brisbane, said.
The club has had a 10 per cent jump in membership in the past year, from 1900 members to 2100.
“A lot of young people are joining. A lot join for hunting, you know, they like to come out to hunt. They'll come out here and sight their rifles and get ready to go out hunting.”
In the past 16 months, 47,000 new guns have been registered in Queensland alone.
One of those new gun owners is Tim, who three months ago bought a .30-30 hunting rifle. He was at the Ipswich gun club recently with three friends who were hoping to get gun licenses.
“Traditionally, it was a lot of older guys,” he said.
“But I think maybe with the influence of video games and what not, guns are getting a bit more attention; hopefully, a bit more positive attention.
“There are misconceptions of the sport, and it is a good, fun, safe sport.”
On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote: Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu
The problem with your argument becomes apparent when your assailant has a weapon, a size advantage or just more experience in fights.
Seriously.
"When I was five I learned kung-fu."
Lot's of Martial Arts places are trash too lol.
Not judging your dojos at all because obviously I can't know every martial arts school in North America and there are tons of reputable schools out there. But lots of places pretty much just sell you your belts and any random dude can open a school so you gotta be careful. A friend of mine went to a belt mill and he thought he was hot shit until he actually got into a fight and he got beat up real bad.
Idk why people think you should be on equal footing with an assailant. If some guy is attacking me why do I have to respect the man and fight him with my fists? Why should I risk getting my ass kicked, break bones, get an eye fucked up like the friend I mention before or maybe even die? Obviously it's one thing to start a fight and pull a knife or a gun or something, but in self defence (especially in your own home) I find it really hard to understand why you shouldn't just shoot the random dude in your house. We had a couple really bad home invasions with people looking for grow ops and one of the homes was a very elderly couple who got beaten up really bad. Should the 80+ year old man fight off a couple thugs?
Just a funny story for those of you who don't realize how ingrained guns are into American culture. I was sitting around at my buddy's living room today watching football and drinking home-brewed beers. His brother rolled in during halftime and with three modified AR-15s in tow. He bought one for him, one for his wife for x-mas, and one just because.
Nothing more American than playing with guns, drinking beer, and watching football. I know it might shock some of you, but nothing about this situation made me feel uneasy. At all. I am not a gun owner, I am not a redneck, I do not hunt, and I've never been a country boy. Yet I'm so familiar and comfortable around guns that none of this bothered me.
Three assault rifles just laying on the floor by the TV as we turned the game off to play some N64. As I sat back and realized what was going on, I thought of this thread and just got a giggle out of how some people, particularly in this thread, would look upon such a situation.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. That at the expense of (gasp) some personal freedom. What do you really need a gun for anyway? Shooting for fun, hunting and mudering people. I would argue that you can live a perfectly happy life without these forms of entertainment. And if you say that you need gun for protection, I'll ask you to shoot yourself in the foot, but your own argument does it. I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible. Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing. By the way, I think drugs should be legalized, because: 1. It will stop drug cartels' trading and the violence they cause. 2. Making drugs tax regulated will, in the end, bring more wealth to everybody. 3. You can't blow off another person's head with a lumb of weed, and it's completely optional if you want to blow off your own. I felt like clearing my view on drugs aswell because I think guns, drug trafficking and murder rates are closely related.
I think the problem with what you are suggesting is the scale of the problem that would be fixed comapred to the scale of the fix. You wouldn't eliminate all gun related homicide, since some spur of the moment killings would be done with kitchen knives and criminals would just use illegally acquired guns. The cost would be the elimination of several sports, "some personal freedom", the enormous hurdle of rounding up all the guns already in circulation.
At some point you are going to have to set a finite cost to human life, and I claim that the trouble of outlawing guns, especially in the United States, would not be worth the lifes saved.
On December 24 2012 09:00 XsebT wrote: You can discuss the limitations of personal freedom from now until eternity, but that the end of the day, logic and examples from other countries tell a clear story; that outlawing guns will lower the murder rate in USA. That at the expense of (gasp) some personal freedom. What do you really need a gun for anyway? Shooting for fun, hunting and mudering people. I would argue that you can live a perfectly happy life without these forms of entertainment. And if you say that you need gun for protection, I'll ask you to shoot yourself in the foot, but your own argument does it. I hate reading all this constitutional bullshit. It's like watching christians argue their religion is true by quoting the bible. Frank Zappa might have said this best: "Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible". If you feel there's currently a problem in USA (and I hope you do), you cannot change it through means of nothing. By the way, I think drugs should be legalized, because: 1. It will stop drug cartels' trading and the violence they cause. 2. Making drugs tax regulated will, in the end, bring more wealth to everybody. 3. You can't blow off another person's head with a lumb of weed, and it's completely optional if you want to blow off your own. I felt like clearing my view on drugs aswell because I think guns, drug trafficking and murder rates are closely related.
You're trying to argue for something that will absolutely never happen in the United States. It is political, cultural, and legal suicide for anyone to try and ban or take away private firearms entirely. Politically because a vast majority of politicians will never support it with significant constituents owning guns. Not to mention lobbies and interest groups like the NRA. Culturally because gun culture is indeed part of the American culture, especially in rural areas and towns. Legally because of an amendment of the most fundamental document that the American government and laws are based on.
You say that's bullshit, but that's because you're not in the position to change or do something about it. All you can do is just discuss and say whatever you want, dismissing whatever that doesn't agree with you. There's a reason why politicians are discussing "gun control," "gun rights," and "gun ownership," but not outright weapons ban.
I won't even mention what will happen to gun sales once the public hears that someone in power is trying to ban or take away their guns...
Yes. If gun control laws actually worked then I would be open to a maybe however I would still have to consider other applications aside from defense. The overriding issue for me is that all the data shows gun control laws don't work and in fact give freedom to violent offenders to do whatever the fuck they want.
On December 25 2012 00:07 Thenerf wrote: Yes. If gun control laws actually worked then I would be open to a maybe however I would still have to consider other applications aside from defense. The overriding issue for me is that all the data shows gun control laws don't work and in fact give freedom to violent offenders to do whatever the fuck they want.
On December 25 2012 00:07 Thenerf wrote: Yes. If gun control laws actually worked then I would be open to a maybe however I would still have to consider other applications aside from defense. The overriding issue for me is that all the data shows gun control laws don't work and in fact give freedom to violent offenders to do whatever the fuck they want.
What data are you talking about....?
All studies. ALL of them.
Look up any government or collegiate study. Go to studies started by organizations for the control of fire arms. It doesn't matter, any study done on a region over a certain population regardless of religion, culture, economic status, ethnicity or any other variable you can think of shows the same evidence. Gun laws are counter productive to the reduction in violence.
The exceptions being studies from dictatorial or communist nations that flat out BS any data to support their gun control policies. And the small towns/outliers which are very hard to find anyway.
I will state that there is evidence that gun control laws reduce the number of FATAL homicide attempts in about 50% of the studies conducted.
And if want to do your own research make sure to read the article. Headlines=politics, numbers=facts.
EPT
why thank you. I try to be rational and reasonable. What you said what actually true. At first when I was typing it I thought: the US wil never be invaded. Then I thought I can never be sure eventually if the US exists long enough they wil get invaded at some point.
