|
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. |
United States24793 Posts
On December 26 2012 22:46 foxmeep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 15:44 Donger wrote:On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Your "if" situation is what happened with the Connecticut shooting. IF someone you know owns a gun (mother) and IF you know where they keep the gun and IF they break the law and keep their gun in an unsafe place (allow for unauthorized use) and IF you break the law and steal their gun and IF you are feeling like ending your life with a (lack of a better word) bang. These incidents can happen anywhere. The real problem isn't the gun laws in America but the mental health care it provides. *edit* @ furymonkey Totally agree with you too. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun for home defense and I would rather that information be public knowledge and easily accessible so that a burglar would be less inclined to enter my house. How do you provide mental health care for people that don't appear to require it?
I think not all, but a lot of the mass shooters in recent years have had mental problems that were noticed by professionals. In some cases they were diagnosed and treated with medication... in some cases no treatment as attempted due to circumstances.
In the 'old days' people with mental problems (lots of people) were placed into institutions and isolated from society. In more recent years we have treatments (mostly drugs) that greatly help 99% of the people who would normally be in these institutions. The other 1% are not helped by newer treatment, but are still 'released' since these types of institutions don't exist anymore, and they go on to do the horrible things we hear about.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On December 26 2012 22:59 Patriot.dlk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 11:34 Heweree wrote:On February 20 2012 11:25 ClanRH.TV wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg) And the second graph is: Who Has the Most Gun ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cf3ee.jpg) I can tell you for a reason that not 30% of the french population has guns. The only guns citizens have are hunting firearms. Did they just take into account all the guns owned by the police and the military and divided it by the total population? It's the only way they found this numbers. And it would be dumb since the police and military weapons are not available to anyone. I lived 8 years in France, and I don't know ANYONE who owns a gun. The only people who own guns are hunters but they aren't many, like 1% of the population maximum. Hunting rifles are obviously included here. Such weapons in sweden are not designed for mass murder. It's also very rarely those kind of rifles that are used in shootings.
It says 30 guns for 100 people, not every 3rd person has a gun in France. And yes, that is all civilian owned guns.
France is definitely one of the gun-happier countries in Europe. The rate of guns is comparable to other major countries (mainly Germany) but France has a lot less restrictions on the kinds of guns recreational shooters can own. Especially if you want to shoot with (semiauto) assault rifles France has a lot less restrictions. Also France probably has a higher percentage of people that own guns, I would guess between 5-10% of the population, which is on the higher end for central Europe.
|
Graphs showing homicide by firearm are misleading unless they also show total homicide or homicide by other means. One country to have less gun homicide and make up the difference in knife homicide.
Also, I would recommend non-americans let the americans talk about this amongst themselves. The fact is that most americans are pro gun, and outsiders will not be able to convince them otherwise. Just sit back and watch, it is not our problem and eventually they will realise what the rest of the first world has realised.
|
On December 26 2012 20:34 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:52 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 26 2012 07:47 zatic wrote:
Of course the idea was the "the right kind" of German would be the ones having the guns. My point is it's a very poor argument for guns being a necessity against dictatorship, when the most archetypical dictatorship in history did considerably loosen or abolish gun control. WHAT IF.. This "Dictatorship", that had started as a democracy, was starting to lose control over that original populace that had given it all the power it currently had.. The people were realizing that they were fighting to many places around the world.. The people were even beginning to realize they were being duped by a "War on drugs" AND the "War on Terror".. If something wasn't done soon(not immediate) it would be bad for the people at the top who had been prospering.. They MIGHT even could go the way of old Nicholas #2.. But you'd probably say this couldn't happen.. I might agree with you.. A dictatorship couldn't ever legally be achieved using democracy.. A country would never establish military bases all over the world.. fighting or being involved in fighting almost anywhere and everywhere they wanted.. A mass of people would never fall for something as stupid as a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Terror"..None of that stuff could ever happen.. and most certainly ALL overthrows are peaceful and done by talking or people volunteering to give up their power.. That line of reasoning is fine, just don't go full godwin and drag Hitler into it.
Legit question... Is it Godwin's law when the comparison is completely appropriate?
not legit... Would it be taken seriously if I had made reference to the fall of the Galactic Senate?
On December 26 2012 22:46 foxmeep wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 15:44 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Your "if" situation is what happened with the Connecticut shooting. IF someone you know owns a gun (mother) and IF you know where they keep the gun and IF they break the law and keep their gun in an unsafe place (allow for unauthorized use) and IF you break the law and steal their gun and IF you are feeling like ending your life with a (lack of a better word) bang. These incidents can happen anywhere. The real problem isn't the gun laws in America but the mental health care it provides. *edit* @ furymonkey Totally agree with you too. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun for home defense and I would rather that information be public knowledge and easily accessible so that a burglar would be less inclined to enter my house. How do you provide mental health care for people that don't appear to require it?
First I would encourage parents to seek help when it comes to their mentally ill kids.. People here tend to think they can take care of it themselves. I'd go so far as to say.. Let's quit paying for illegals to have and raise families here and pay for institutions where people can stay and not be a danger to anyone..
|
On December 27 2012 01:46 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 20:34 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 10:52 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 26 2012 07:47 zatic wrote:
Of course the idea was the "the right kind" of German would be the ones having the guns. My point is it's a very poor argument for guns being a necessity against dictatorship, when the most archetypical dictatorship in history did considerably loosen or abolish gun control. WHAT IF.. This "Dictatorship", that had started as a democracy, was starting to lose control over that original populace that had given it all the power it currently had.. The people were realizing that they were fighting to many places around the world.. The people were even beginning to realize they were being duped by a "War on drugs" AND the "War on Terror".. If something wasn't done soon(not immediate) it would be bad for the people at the top who had been prospering.. They MIGHT even could go the way of old Nicholas #2.. But you'd probably say this couldn't happen.. I might agree with you.. A dictatorship couldn't ever legally be achieved using democracy.. A country would never establish military bases all over the world.. fighting or being involved in fighting almost anywhere and everywhere they wanted.. A mass of people would never fall for something as stupid as a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Terror"..None of that stuff could ever happen.. and most certainly ALL overthrows are peaceful and done by talking or people volunteering to give up their power.. That line of reasoning is fine, just don't go full godwin and drag Hitler into it. Legit question... Is it Godwin's law when the comparison is completely appropriate? not legit... Would it be taken seriously if I had made reference to the fall of the Galactic Senate? Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 22:46 foxmeep wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 15:44 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Your "if" situation is what happened with the Connecticut shooting. IF someone you know owns a gun (mother) and IF you know where they keep the gun and IF they break the law and keep their gun in an unsafe place (allow for unauthorized use) and IF you break the law and steal their gun and IF you are feeling like ending your life with a (lack of a better word) bang. These incidents can happen anywhere. The real problem isn't the gun laws in America but the mental health care it provides. *edit* @ furymonkey Totally agree with you too. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun for home defense and I would rather that information be public knowledge and easily accessible so that a burglar would be less inclined to enter my house. How do you provide mental health care for people that don't appear to require it? First I would encourage parents to seek help when it comes to their mentally ill kids.. People here tend to think they can take care of it themselves. I'd go so far as to say.. Let's quit paying for illegals to have and raise families here and pay for institutions where people can stay and not be a danger to anyone..
Seriously? You're blaming illegal immigrants for our lack of mental health care? This has got to be a troll or sockpuppet account.
|
On December 26 2012 09:16 Integra wrote:Decided to post this in the gun control thread instead of its own thread: From ABC NewsShow nested quote +A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.
Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.
The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.
“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.
“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.
All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records. The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication, according to The Journal News’ website.
In a statement to ABC News, The Journal News said its readers “are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods,” because of the conversation about gun control on its website after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., last week.
“We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law requests. We also requested information on the number and types of guns owned by permit holders, but officials in the county clerks offices in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties maintained that those specifics were not public record,” the statement read.
“New York’s top public-records expert, Robert Freeman, disagrees,” it added.
The paper declined to answer further questions about the map.
The map(s), which are highly detailed, can be viewed at http://www.lohud.com The newspaper is also planning to Map more areas. I think this whole debate took a new turn.
it's gonna be really funny when the people named in this turn around and request and receive public information about the editors and writers that thought this was a good idea.
the reason that there is so little headway on gun control in the us is because of retarded shit like this. this further alienates the fanatics who rush out to buy assault rifles and the shit that shouldn't be owned by the general public, and then just really pisses off the majority of gun owners who either own for protection, to shoot at the range or hunt and don't bother anyone.
|
In Brazil we have a saying
Opportunity makes the thief
By that line of thiking, easing the access to such actions will certainly make more more likely to occour than not, theres such an gigantic entry barrier to getting access to guns that only your ocasional gun nut will have some without being either a gangster or related to someone in law enforcement.
Of course people can go to a favela and try to buy a gun, and several people do so in order to protecter themselves, but you wont get a permit to walk with it on the street, and revealing that you have a gun in case of self defense will lead to persecution for the crime of having a gun illegaly, so theres many levels of deterrence to getting a gun and being able to move around with it.
On top of that, Brazilians can be quite supersticious so most people believe that having guns around leads to the situations they are suposed to avoid, like attracing bad energy.
I guess its mostly cultural, but any country big enough, its gonna have some sick people do tragic stuff with the tools avaible to them, the USA for some reason empowers these wackos to do mayhem more than any other country on earth, and I think ease of access to the tools and devices of mayhem can have something to do with it.
|
On December 27 2012 03:27 Zealotdriver wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2012 01:46 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 20:34 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 10:52 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 26 2012 07:47 zatic wrote:
Of course the idea was the "the right kind" of German would be the ones having the guns. My point is it's a very poor argument for guns being a necessity against dictatorship, when the most archetypical dictatorship in history did considerably loosen or abolish gun control. WHAT IF.. This "Dictatorship", that had started as a democracy, was starting to lose control over that original populace that had given it all the power it currently had.. The people were realizing that they were fighting to many places around the world.. The people were even beginning to realize they were being duped by a "War on drugs" AND the "War on Terror".. If something wasn't done soon(not immediate) it would be bad for the people at the top who had been prospering.. They MIGHT even could go the way of old Nicholas #2.. But you'd probably say this couldn't happen.. I might agree with you.. A dictatorship couldn't ever legally be achieved using democracy.. A country would never establish military bases all over the world.. fighting or being involved in fighting almost anywhere and everywhere they wanted.. A mass of people would never fall for something as stupid as a "War on Drugs" or a "War on Terror"..None of that stuff could ever happen.. and most certainly ALL overthrows are peaceful and done by talking or people volunteering to give up their power.. That line of reasoning is fine, just don't go full godwin and drag Hitler into it. Legit question... Is it Godwin's law when the comparison is completely appropriate? not legit... Would it be taken seriously if I had made reference to the fall of the Galactic Senate? Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 22:46 foxmeep wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 26 2012 15:44 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 07:18 zatic wrote:On December 26 2012 03:00 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 25 2012 23:13 zatic wrote:Sure, if you have a "friend" that will illegally sell you a gun that is registered to him (who in their right mind would do that?), then it would be easy to get a gun illegally. It's just not a scenario that will happen. It's probably much easier to simply get your license and get a gun legally in most of Europe. It will take a while though. So yeah, it is very hard to get a gun quickly in Europe, legal or illegal. See here: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=241586 (Thanks for the link.. I learned a bit) Let's say it's not his gun.. I'm a tourist from America, who happens to be the guys friend.. I offer him twice the store price if he were to steal his neighbors pistol (we'll say it's some old guy who won't notice it gone for maybe a week) What counter-measures are around Europe that would stop me from taking this pistol to any other country? Sure, IF you know an old guy who doesn't miss his gun, and IF you know where he keeps the gun, and IF the old guy breaks the law and doesn't keep his gun in a gun safe, and IF you have an insane friend who risks a jail sentence for stealing a gun for a random American tourist, then no, Europe does not have any measure to stop you from taking this gun to another country. I don't really understand the point of the question though. Europe doesn't have any measure of stopping you from carrying a gun you found in the dumpster either. It's just not something that will happen. Your "if" situation is what happened with the Connecticut shooting. IF someone you know owns a gun (mother) and IF you know where they keep the gun and IF they break the law and keep their gun in an unsafe place (allow for unauthorized use) and IF you break the law and steal their gun and IF you are feeling like ending your life with a (lack of a better word) bang. These incidents can happen anywhere. The real problem isn't the gun laws in America but the mental health care it provides. *edit* @ furymonkey Totally agree with you too. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun for home defense and I would rather that information be public knowledge and easily accessible so that a burglar would be less inclined to enter my house. How do you provide mental health care for people that don't appear to require it? First I would encourage parents to seek help when it comes to their mentally ill kids.. People here tend to think they can take care of it themselves. I'd go so far as to say.. Let's quit paying for illegals to have and raise families here and pay for institutions where people can stay and not be a danger to anyone.. Seriously? You're blaming illegal immigrants for our lack of mental health care? This has got to be a troll or sockpuppet account.
I'd go so far as to say.. Let's quit paying for illegals to have and raise families here and pay for institutions where people can stay and not be a danger to anyone..
YEP... looks like I'm heaping blame on illegals.. A question was asked.. I answered what I'd do.. But now I know next time I'll run my opinion by you first so your posterior won't hurt. In the imaginary situation I needed to get the money to support the institutions from somewhere.. Should I "borrow" it from social security? Would it be better for you if I took money from old people who worked and earned that money?
|
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
For the people blaming the evil looking AR-15... apparently, the "complexity" of the situation got people confused, since now they're hearing that the AR got left in the car.
So, does that make "evil" looking rifles better than handguns, since they're harder to conceal?
|
On December 26 2012 06:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:39 Deadeight wrote:On December 26 2012 05:32 Donger wrote:On December 26 2012 05:21 Marathi wrote:
Missiles come in all shapes and sizes not just nuclear missiles. Why do you think those poor countries struggle with insurgents so poorly? Because they do not have the technology the western world has to dispose of them. Do you really think if you were to rebel the government would just send some armed soldiers round to your location for a good old fashioned shoot out? No, they would drop a small bomb on your location and that would be that.
No I do not believe that we would go into the middle east and wipe it clean. You seem to have no idea how modern warfare works. Drones and/or ground troops move into a location of enemy activity to pinpoint an area for a bombing/strafing run by aircraft. If they spot women or children they cannot send the aircraft in. The only time firefights occur is if the enemy territory is easy enough to overwhelm without the use of aircraft, or they ground patrol gets caught out by insurgents whilst on their scouting mission.
Whilst those dictators may not have used missiles against their own people they have overwhelmed them in their own way. Whether they were armed or not, owning a rifle will not protect you from anything that Saddam did with regards to biological and chemical weapons (and as far as im aware Saddam did face a considerable amount of armed resistance). So lets be honest your automatic rifles and hand guns will never be a match for an American government who planned to play dirty.
Like other people have stated the chances of a government as big and developed as Americas becoming tyrannical without opposition from many other countries is absolutely preposterous anyway. Which negates such a need for the ownership of fire arms. My belief is that it is a step in a direction that leads to tyranny. However, I do not see America ever becoming tyrannical. What I do believe is that with each tragedy that this nation experiences we give up our freedoms in the name of safety. Another example of this is the Patriot Act. In order to stop terrorists we allow the government to legally ease drop on our lives in order to stop terrorism. I don't know how you feel about quotes but it is how I view the matter. " He who sacrafice freedom for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin That's a stupid quote because if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion you wouldn't have any laws. Its a good thing then that they made a document to show all the freedoms they were refering to and a system to clearly define and protect said freedoms.
Ok good. Because the second amendment was passed 15th December 1791; Benjamin Franklin died on the 15th April 1790.
|
If anyone thinks guns are going to get banned in any sense should think again. Guns are american made, and the more people that buy them up, the better! My dad wanted me to get some magazines today, but every single store was sold out of the type. Fucking crazy.
Gun sales are at the highest levels in history, right? Or at least, historic levels.
While I don't see the need for a civilian to own a 50 cal barret snipe rifle or whatever it's called, I don't see any reasons why one shouldn't be able to own one. As long as they don't shoot it anywhere not on their property, at anyone, or fuck shit up that don't need to be fucked up.
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
|
On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive.
I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly.
|
On December 27 2012 10:27 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game. But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive. I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly.
Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
|
Poll: Do you believe if everyone owns a gun society would be safer?Nope, more violence would occur (22) 71% Nope, doesn't make a damn difference. (5) 16% Yes, no one would do anything stupid. Everyone is self-empowered (4) 13% 31 total votes Your vote: Do you believe if everyone owns a gun society would be safer? (Vote): Yes, no one would do anything stupid. Everyone is self-empowered
(Vote): Nope, doesn't make a damn difference.
(Vote): Nope, more violence would occur
|
So for Christmas my dad signed my 2 brothers and I up for a concealed handgun course. Four more law abiding Americans will be armed next month. Don't worry we won't shoot anyone that isn't threatening to take our lives.
|
On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
If anyone thinks guns are going to get banned in any sense should think again. Guns are american made, and the more people that buy them up, the better! My dad wanted me to get some magazines today, but every single store was sold out of the type. Fucking crazy.
Gun sales are at the highest levels in history, right? Or at least, historic levels.
While I don't see the need for a civilian to own a 50 cal barret snipe rifle or whatever it's called, I don't see any reasons why one shouldn't be able to own one. As long as they don't shoot it anywhere not on their property, at anyone, or fuck shit up that don't need to be fucked up.
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
As someone who has shot a Barrett I can say there's absolutely no fucking reason anyone needs one unless you're looking to terrify the little asian lady next to you at the gun range. It works pretty well for that. They're a lot of fun, but at $5 a round they're not exactly reasonable to be shooting for funsies all the time and they serve absolutely zero rational purpose otherwise.
|
On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 10:27 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game. But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive. I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly. Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats).
And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
|
On December 27 2012 10:40 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On December 27 2012 10:27 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game. But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive. I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly. Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too. Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats). And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
|
On December 27 2012 10:42 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 10:40 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On December 27 2012 10:27 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game. But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive. I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly. Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too. Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats). And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car. A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
Yes such as the police and the armed forces
|
On December 27 2012 10:47 Marathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 10:42 Rhino85 wrote:On December 27 2012 10:40 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:On December 27 2012 10:27 Marathi wrote:On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game. But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive. I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly. Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too. Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats). And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car. A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car. Yes such as the police and the armed forces
Oh, now I feel much safer knowing how many murders the police are preventing with all these statistics being thrown out about how much more gun violence America has then other 1st world countries. Keep up the good work Policemen and armed services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
