• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:19
CEST 03:19
KST 10:19
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence5Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups3WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia7Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments3
StarCraft 2
General
Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 General Discussion Playing StarCraft as 2 people on the same network
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group C [IPSL] ISPL Season 1 Winter Qualis and Info! Is there English video for group selection for ASL [ASL20] Ro16 Group B
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread Borderlands 3
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Big Programming Thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1289 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 327 328 329 330 331 891 Next
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.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24701 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-27 17:31:26
December 27 2012 17:30 GMT
#6561
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Marathi
Profile Joined July 2011
298 Posts
December 27 2012 17:35 GMT
#6562
On December 28 2012 02:12 Marti wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 00:43 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 19:34 Marti wrote:
On December 27 2012 11:05 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:56 Rhino85 wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:47 Marathi wrote:
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:
[quote]

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 " )


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.

Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 01:57 Ghost-z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]

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...


If you actually read my post you would have read that I agreed that the police are inefficient as it is. Arming the general public and letting them act as vigilantes is not the answer to that problem. Removing and restricting guns is.
eSports tees designed by me - http://tinyurl.com/bqmexd9
Marti
Profile Joined August 2011
552 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-27 17:44:02
December 27 2012 17:40 GMT
#6563
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you.
Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.

I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands.
As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.

Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse.
But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.

For reference, micronesia's post :
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.

#adun giveafuck - - - "Did this guy just randomly finger me?" - Sayle
AmericanNightmare
Profile Joined September 2011
United States98 Posts
December 27 2012 17:55 GMT
#6564
On December 27 2012 16:29 Millitron wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 27 2012 11:09 Marathi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 27 2012 10:59 iplayBANJO wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:47 Marathi wrote:
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


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Even if you can get to a phone and dial 911, the police are not obligated to help.



I did not know this.. WTF!! "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions. Call me the America Nightmare. Call me the American Dream.
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 27 2012 17:57 GMT
#6565
On December 28 2012 02:35 Marathi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 02:12 Marti wrote:
On December 28 2012 00:43 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 19:34 Marti wrote:
On December 27 2012 11:05 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:56 Rhino85 wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:47 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:42 Rhino85 wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:40 Marathi wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:
[quote]

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.

On December 28 2012 01:57 Ghost-z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

[image loading]

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...


If you actually read my post you would have read that I agreed that the police are inefficient as it is. Arming the general public and letting them act as vigilantes is not the answer to that problem. Removing and restricting guns is.


It's not vigilantism to defend yourself. Using the word, in fact, is an attempt to create a negative emotion about gun owners. If they use it for self defense as laid down in the law, it can not possibly be vigilantism, which is extralegal by definition.

The cops in a lot of the US suck. Not all of them, but enough of them. Even if they were all generally decent, they'd be way too busy to be completely effective.

Police are, also, a reactive force, rather than preventive. Reacting to a crime is all well and good, but it doesn't usually stop whatever harm is being done from being done.
HellRoxYa
Profile Joined September 2010
Sweden1614 Posts
December 27 2012 19:18 GMT
#6566
On December 28 2012 02:55 AmericanNightmare wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 27 2012 16:29 Millitron wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 27 2012 11:09 Marathi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 27 2012 10:59 iplayBANJO wrote:
On December 27 2012 10:47 Marathi wrote:
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


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Even if you can get to a phone and dial 911, the police are not obligated to help.



I did not know this.. WTF!! "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."


Otherwise you could sue the state whenever someone commits a criminal act on public property. They are responsible for whatever we (through the state) say they are, and nothing more. I think you're thrown off by the wording.
mynameisgreat11
Profile Joined February 2012
599 Posts
December 27 2012 19:20 GMT
#6567
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
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.

That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.


Obviously everything we do effects those around us. It's pretty clear that being shot is a much more direct connection than the toll a drug addict takes on those close to him.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24701 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-12-27 19:35:36
December 27 2012 19:34 GMT
#6568
On December 28 2012 04:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
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.

That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.


Obviously everything we do effects those around us. It's pretty clear that being shot is a much more direct connection than the toll a drug addict takes on those close to him.

Well I was thinking this way:

Hard Drugs:

Cons for addict/user: Degrades Health, Ruins other aspects of life
Cons for others: Get mugged/robbed by addict who needs money to get fix, get hurt/killed by guy who is high on certain drugs, ruined life of family member/friend/etc

Guns:

Cons for legal gun owner: could cause a home invasion or domestic dispute to escalate unecessarily
Cons for others: if gun is stolen, could be used to shoot innocent people
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
December 27 2012 19:37 GMT
#6569
On December 28 2012 02:40 Marti wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
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.

If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you.
Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.

I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands.
As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.

Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse.
But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.

For reference, micronesia's post :
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.


If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
Who called in the fleet?
Tarias
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands480 Posts
December 27 2012 19:41 GMT
#6570
On December 28 2012 04:37 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 02:40 Marti wrote:
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
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.

If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you.
Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.

I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands.
As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.

Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse.
But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.

For reference, micronesia's post :
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.


If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.


In my experience most drug addicts where shitty people to be around before they ever touched drugs, you can hardly blame the drugs for it.
Go big, or go home!
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
December 27 2012 19:57 GMT
#6571
On December 28 2012 04:41 Tarias wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 04:37 Millitron wrote:
On December 28 2012 02:40 Marti wrote:
On December 28 2012 02:29 Tarotis wrote:
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.

If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you.
Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.

I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands.
As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.

Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse.
But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.

For reference, micronesia's post :
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote:
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.


If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.


In my experience most drug addicts where shitty people to be around before they ever touched drugs, you can hardly blame the drugs for it.

Drugs certainly don't help the situation.

It's kinda funny, replace drugs with guns, and you've almost made the exact same argument as us pro-gun folks. Most violent criminals were terrible people without guns too.
Who called in the fleet?
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 27 2012 21:10 GMT
#6572
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8111 Posts
December 27 2012 21:48 GMT
#6573
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 27 2012 21:53 GMT
#6574
On December 28 2012 06:48 Excludos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.


Ah, but see, you're not calling for bans. That was more addressed at the people who are. I'm a firm believer that there's nothing wrong with putting better stuff in place to keep the guns out of the hands of whackjobs.

That "other than recreational, which I'm also fine with" caveat you put in there tends to be one of those hotly argued points central to the entire debate.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
December 27 2012 22:00 GMT
#6575
On December 28 2012 06:48 Excludos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.

Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.
Who called in the fleet?
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 27 2012 22:05 GMT
#6576
On December 28 2012 07:00 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 06:48 Excludos wrote:
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.

Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.


Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.
darmousseh
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States3437 Posts
December 27 2012 22:11 GMT
#6577
This is kinda backwards I think. I think the question should really be: "Why shouldn't people have the right to own and/or carry guns".

The bill of rights and just the general principle of freedom would allow any person to own a weapon. Using a weapon on someone would be an infringement of someone else's right to life. The next question is whether owning a gun in itself is an infringement of other's rights. Probably not, but the case can be made that individuals who cannot make rational decisions and themselves are a threat to other's should not be allowed to carry a gun since just holding one would be a threat against other's lives. This also means that individuals who give guns or make guns available to those who would use them for harm are themselves at least partially responsible.

I think this is where the conversation really begins. I think individuals must secure their weapons (guns, knives, cars, etc) in a reasonable manner such that those who would cause harm to others are not able to easily obtain them. If someone breaks into a safe or breaks a lock or something, then on a case by case basis it should be determined whether or not the individual was somewhat responsible at securing their weapon.


I really think there is a better way though. Weapon liability insurance. Gun owners should be able to shove liability onto insurers in order to secure their weapons more appropriately. Insurers can encourage better behavior through discounting and penalties for failure to comply with insurance rules. There will be discounts for securing weapons with better locks, gun training, and purchasing guns with a lower number of rounds available.


I'm happy to continue this line of thought if anyone else is.


Developer for http://mtgfiddle.com
tokicheese
Profile Joined April 2011
Canada739 Posts
December 27 2012 22:15 GMT
#6578
On December 28 2012 07:05 JingleHell wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 07:00 Millitron wrote:
On December 28 2012 06:48 Excludos wrote:
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.

Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.


Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.

My brother and I have legal .22 magazines that hold 30+ rounds. It's a real pain in the ass to stop and reload the 10 round clips that come with the 10/22 over and over when you just shooting cans or something. It's only legal to have more than 5 round capacity in a .22 in Canada. If you shave down a little piece of metal in the SKS clip it can hold 7 but you can get into big big trouble for doing that.

http://sttgl.com/30060901/page graphics/inv/24102.jpg This is the magazine.
t༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ށ
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
December 27 2012 22:29 GMT
#6579
On December 28 2012 07:15 tokicheese wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 28 2012 07:05 JingleHell wrote:
On December 28 2012 07:00 Millitron wrote:
On December 28 2012 06:48 Excludos wrote:
On December 28 2012 06:10 JingleHell wrote:
Here's an entertaining old article from BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)

Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.


The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.

Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.


Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.

My brother and I have legal .22 magazines that hold 30+ rounds. It's a real pain in the ass to stop and reload the 10 round clips that come with the 10/22 over and over when you just shooting cans or something. It's only legal to have more than 5 round capacity in a .22 in Canada. If you shave down a little piece of metal in the SKS clip it can hold 7 but you can get into big big trouble for doing that.

http://sttgl.com/30060901/page graphics/inv/24102.jpg This is the magazine.


Ok, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If it's a pain in the ass for you, that's one thing, get speedloaders. But as far as having to change mags or take the sights off the target "interfering" which is what I was responding to, what I said still stands.

micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24701 Posts
December 27 2012 22:31 GMT
#6580
When I was in a youth riflery club shooting target 22s, we used single-shots and had to reload after each round. I found that to make more sense for target shooting than semi-auto. Semi-auto does have its purposes, but single-shots have some real advantages as well.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Prev 1 327 328 329 330 331 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
00:00
Mid Season Playoffs #2
CranKy Ducklings86
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SpeCial 88
Nina 81
CosmosSc2 33
Vindicta 26
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 805
ggaemo 116
sSak 15
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm165
Counter-Strike
fl0m1726
Stewie2K512
Other Games
summit1g5612
shahzam995
JimRising 415
C9.Mang0339
Day[9].tv179
SortOf179
Maynarde132
Trikslyr73
Nathanias26
RuFF_SC221
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1162
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta30
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 19
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• Scarra1064
• Day9tv179
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
8h 42m
Afreeca Starleague
8h 42m
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
9h 42m
PiGosaur Monday
22h 42m
LiuLi Cup
1d 9h
RSL Revival
2 days
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
4 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
4 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Online Event
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.