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.
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
And they've never used their weapons or authority without proper cause, like civilians do. Right?
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.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
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
And they've never used their weapons or authority without proper cause, like civilians do. Right?
Of course they have but the amount of cases is much lower than that of civilian usage. Did a policeman kill those 4 firefighters? Did a policeman shoot all those innocent children? Did a policeman shoot up a cinema? No crazy civilian people did with weapons no one should ever need in a cilivian lifestyle because they had access to them.
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote: LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time.
In regards to federal law, I can speak from my experience in Ohio. I spoke with an agent from the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) in Columbus less than a year ago regarding a few firearms I wanted to sell. I was planning to sell them private party but wanted to make certain I was within the law in every aspect.
So long as it is not an automatic weapon (in my case they were a .45 handgun and a semi-auto rifle) I was able to sell to anyone with residence in my state. I just needed to see a valid identification from them and vice versa. There may be some differences across states but concerning my state and the BATF office here, that is the policy.
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote: LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time.
In regards to federal law, I can speak from my experience in Ohio. I spoke with an agent from the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) in Columbus less than a year ago regarding a few firearms I wanted to sell. I was planning to sell them private party but wanted to make certain I was within the law in every aspect.
So long as it is not an automatic weapon (in my case they were a .45 handgun and a semi-auto rifle) I was able to sell to anyone with residence in my state. I just needed to see a valid identification from them and vice versa. There may be some differences across states but concerning my state and the BATF office here, that is the policy.
1. An individual may only sell/transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her state. 2. You cannot transfer/sell a weapon to someone if you believe or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearm under Federal law. 3. If the above requirements are met, ATF recommends the buyer and seller both keep a bill of sale (a document who sold the firearm, a description of the firearm, and who bought the firearm) so that if the firearm is ever traced, the buyer/seller can provide the information.
On December 25 2012 14:49 mynameisgreat11 wrote: LOL at people who don't know that you can own an M-4.
Why is that funny? You were surprised that not everyone is an expert on every model of rifle and whether or not it can be obtained in civilian model? Jeesh.
Utah is a helluva state. I bought mine, legally, used, without any registration, background check, or waiting period.
Did you buy it from a friend/acquaintance? If not, then I believe it was technically in violation of federal law, although it happens all the time.
In regards to federal law, I can speak from my experience in Ohio. I spoke with an agent from the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) in Columbus less than a year ago regarding a few firearms I wanted to sell. I was planning to sell them private party but wanted to make certain I was within the law in every aspect.
So long as it is not an automatic weapon (in my case they were a .45 handgun and a semi-auto rifle) I was able to sell to anyone with residence in my state. I just needed to see a valid identification from them and vice versa. There may be some differences across states but concerning my state and the BATF office here, that is the policy.
1. An individual may only sell/transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her state. 2. You cannot transfer/sell a weapon to someone if you believe or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearm under Federal law. 3. If the above requirements are met, ATF recommends the buyer and seller both keep a bill of sale (a document who sold the firearm, a description of the firearm, and who bought the firearm) so that if the firearm is ever traced, the buyer/seller can provide the information.
Regarding point one, for anyone interested it is stating for a non-licensed resident (aka you are NOT a firearms dealer) you may only sell to non-licensed resident of the same state. You can also sell to a dealer in your state but that is not mentioned.
Here is a brief quote from the BATF:
Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Here a link to the FAQ if anyone desires more information: BATF FAQ
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.
What is drunk drivings death toll for $1,000, please.
What is the history of the design of the car from the 50s~ ear for $1,000, please.
The car was designed to kill on impact back in the day. Look this up and enlighten yourself.
What is the history of hunting tools for $1,000?
Do you think tools such as knives aren't meant for killing? Why do you think they exist in the first place? To help you cut your steak when you're in ancient times?
On December 27 2012 09:48 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: Guns are american made, and the more people that buy them up, the better!
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
I think the major debate is whether or not the US should have stricter gun control laws.
According to whom? There was a study that was posted in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice that actually said the opposite. This study was conducted after Canada passed the Bill C-51, back in 1977, which "required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm".
Le contrôle des armes à feu induit peut-être certains suspects à tuer par d'autres méthodes, mais il est moins probable que ces suspects tuent multiples victimes. [Source] [Source US]
Gun control laws might lead certain suspects to kill via other means, but it less likely that these suspects kill multiple victims.
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.
What is drunk drivings death toll for $1,000, please.
What is the history of the design of the car from the 50s~ ear for $1,000, please.
The car was designed to kill on impact back in the day. Look this up and enlighten yourself.
What is the history of hunting tools for $1,000?
Do you think tools such as knives aren't meant for killing? Why do you think they exist in the first place? To help you cut your steak when you're in ancient times?
Are you a stressed out game show host? Does it ever seem like your routines and dialogues at work follow you home at night? Or are you really going to pay me thousands of dollars to google these things for you?
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.
What is drunk drivings death toll for $1,000, please.
What is the history of the design of the car from the 50s~ ear for $1,000, please.
The car was designed to kill on impact back in the day. Look this up and enlighten yourself.
What is the history of hunting tools for $1,000?
Do you think tools such as knives aren't meant for killing? Why do you think they exist in the first place? To help you cut your steak when you're in ancient times?
He said modern day knives.
And drunk driving could be fixed by taking away alcohol and keeping cars.
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
And they've never used their weapons or authority without proper cause, like civilians do. Right?
Of course they have but the amount of cases is much lower than that of civilian usage. Did a policeman kill those 4 firefighters? Did a policeman shoot all those innocent children? Did a policeman shoot up a cinema? No crazy civilian people did with weapons no one should ever need in a cilivian lifestyle because they had access to them.
You simply can't expect the police to be everywhere instantly. If you're being attacked, you have a couple of minutes at most before you're dead or seriously injured. The police can take 20 minutes or more, if they even come at all.
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.
What is drunk drivings death toll for $1,000, please.
What is the history of the design of the car from the 50s~ ear for $1,000, please.
The car was designed to kill on impact back in the day. Look this up and enlighten yourself.
What is the history of hunting tools for $1,000?
Do you think tools such as knives aren't meant for killing? Why do you think they exist in the first place? To help you cut your steak when you're in ancient times?
I like how your argument helps to promote my point that these things have changed over time. Yes I am not an idiot and realise that knives were initially created for hunting and combat, but these items are commonly used today for the purposes I mentioned earlier, because the benefits owning knives brings with regards to cooking, etc outweigh the negative of it potentially being an aid to murder.
Whilst one of the primary functions of a gun (more specifically semi-auto rifles as you don't really hunt with hand guns, automatics, etc) is for hunting over time it has unfortunately slid away from this intended use. In the UK farmers have special gun licenses for shotgun ownership, perhaps in the US something similar should be done for farmers/those who have to hunt to survive. But not people who hunt for sport as it is not necessary to survival.
Yes drink driving costs families a lot of heartache and it has affected me first hand, but it is illegal and because of this a lot less of it occurs than it would if it were legal.
If you took away cars from the general public the developed world would cease to function (especially the US) but if you took guns away from the general public we'd see a lot less mass shootings and other gun related crimes.
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.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
His point is that a gun in the right hands can prevent damage. Your point is that "the right hands" means police and armed forces only ( excluding civilians ). He then replies sarcastically that the police doesn't really prevent those murders. His point isn't that the police is to blame, it's that the police isn't eifficient. You either misunderstood that for "the police is to blame" or purposefully ignored his point.
To contribute to the thread i'll also leave that video ( related to " a gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage than a knife or a car " )
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.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
His point is that a gun in the right hands can prevent damage. Your point is that "the right hands" means police and armed forces only ( excluding civilians ). He then replies sarcastically that the police doesn't really prevent those murders. His point isn't that the police is to blame, it's that the police isn't eifficient. You either misunderstood that for "the police is to blame" or purposefully ignored his point.
To contribute to the thread i'll also leave that video ( related to " a gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage than a knife or a car " ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IooR29LT5hM
I ignored his point about the police because it is not the underlying problem. High gun related crime stats is not because the police aren't doing they're job, they're not superhuman, it's because there are masses amounts of guns available to the general public. You're right the police are inefficient - take away the guns from the public and they'd have a helll of an easier job because there'd be a lot less criminals around.
Also that video you posted is absolutely reckless. If those two men had reacted in a different way there could have been a lot of casualties. Fortunately they panicked and fled the scene. That old man put all those lives in danger by deciding to be a hero. Ok in this scenario the thieves were repelled but they could have started shooting at anyone just over some cash.
Edit: Please read this article by the Washington Post it brings up some interesting points which I have been trying to get across. Such as the amount of weapons killers obtain legally, that more guns = more murders. I also like how he thought Switzerland and Israel had similar gun laws when they no longer do.
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.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
His point is that a gun in the right hands can prevent damage. Your point is that "the right hands" means police and armed forces only ( excluding civilians ). He then replies sarcastically that the police doesn't really prevent those murders. His point isn't that the police is to blame, it's that the police isn't eifficient. You either misunderstood that for "the police is to blame" or purposefully ignored his point.
To contribute to the thread i'll also leave that video ( related to " a gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage than a knife or a car " ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IooR29LT5hM
I ignored his point about the police because it is not the underlying problem.
Aaaaah i see. You basically admit that he is right and you cannot argue against his argument, so you ignore it on purpose and reply with a fallacy. Thanks.
Thought maybe this is relevant to the topic. The US is definitely a most violent country but guns seem to get all the media attention.
That is very surprising to me. It was to my understanding that smoking was actually highly frowned upon in the US. Guess i was wrong about that Edit : well i might not have been wrong, it just means that cigarettes kill a helluva lot more people than guns do, but still...
Thought maybe this is relevant to the topic. The US is definitely a most violent country but guns seem to get all the media attention.
you can easily fake those statistics. let's say you call different types of firearms as different weapons. then you may have baseball bats as the "most used" weapon. but in total, there are much less people killed by baseball bats than by firearms.
plus the USA is the only first world country that has such abnormal firearmkillrates. without looking it up, I say that the whole EU doesn't have that many people killed by firearms. and the USA is also the only first world country that has those ridiculous gunrights. you have to be a fool to not see the connection between firearm availability and firearm caused deaths
Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
EPT![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/375445_432479896821641_1449476806_n.jpg)
