|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 31 2012 09:32 ETisME wrote:
are all anti gun ownership people being called liberal?
personally I don't have much political interest and just feel much safer if all my neighbors don't own a gun and pretty sure there aren't any average burgers carrying firearms, that's why I am against it.
I know this topic is mainly concerned in US but just offering my opinion as a person coming from a background where there is NO gun culture, except air gun where we have fairly strict restrictions on modifications
I think it's fine to hold that position if your culture makes it work.
In the US, the culture just doesn't work that way.
|
On December 30 2012 19:51 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 13:35 fight_or_flight wrote:If americans no longer had guns, I wonder if swat teams would stop kicking people's doors in a 3 am with "search warrants"? I wonder if all the $500,000 police drone grants from homeland security would stop being given out? Would the departments still be getting armored vehicles and assault weapons? I wonder if weapons were gone, if drug gangs that go back and forth across the boarder would finally be dealt with? I wonder if the TSA would stop expanding to amtrak, bus stations, all other public transportation? Do you think the war on terrorism would diminish? Would Obama's kill list be discarded? Would the " double tapdouble tap" drone tactics be abolished? I wonder the department of homeland security's use of powers granted by the patriot act would be used more, or less? The fact is, guns have been legal in America since forever. But we are only recently seeing a very disturbing trend of this type of inexcusable behavior on the government's part. That seems like a pretty good reason not to ban high-cap mags and assault rifles. I didn't make up the stuff in the above paragraph...this is a real trend and it will continue. We should look at the meds these shooters are on. It's a common theme. Can you really have suicidal thoughts without homicidal thoughts? How come pharmaceutical companies never put that on the label? Why do so many people require these medications nowadays? That's a good measure of how sick our society is, literally. We have sick individuals who need medication. We have a government which is showing some kind of psychological sickness, or maybe they're causing it. Before even talking gun control (even having a debate), I'd like to first see the government behave reasonably, responsibly, and in american citizens' best interest. These people gave illegal weapons to drug dealers (fast and furious), leave the border open, kill americans with drones, it goes on and on. And they want us to give up assault weapons and high-cap mags? Give up guns? Seriously?? They need to get their fricken act together. They have no credibility. They make the whole situation much worse. These people know what I'm talking about: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/If there ever was a history lesson to be learned, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more stark example than what the Russians have gone through. Millions and millions of deaths, and corruption and abuse that continues to this very day. Human trafficing. Disarmament is the precursor to genocide. That's simply a fact.
What's up with these training exercises I'm hearing of. Police officers being trained to work in conjunction with military operated drones. Certain police officers, referred to as the 'roid heads', volunteering to work directly with the feds in training exercises. He says they will be on the payroll of the state, but the equipment will be provided from the federal government.
+ Show Spoiler +
Sure you can dismiss this police lieutenant as lying, but it sounds very plausible, given the context.
For example, why has the department of homeland security purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition? Remember, they don't operate outside of the country. We're talking hollow point ammunition, which is even banned by the Geneva conventions. (Remember, they aren't the police, which belong to individual cities, counties, and states.)
http://www.naturalnews.com/038407_ammunition_homeland_security_civil_war.html
How can we be asked to give up our weapons while at the same time the DHS is purchasing billions of rounds of ammo and training police and feds to work in conjunction with military drones?
You don't like my youtube video? Double-tap Obama wants 30,000 flying over america by 2020.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=8504
They've got so much gear that police drones are crashing into swat teams! I believe every word that brave lieutenant spoke above.
Perhaps other countries don't need as many guns in society like we have, but I don't think their domestic security agencies are purchasing billions of rounds of domestic ammunition either. Be glad you aren't here if you're from a more peaceful country.
I want to see the federal government disarmed before even talking about disarming the population. They are behaving very aggressively.
|
I want to see the federal government disarmed before even talking about disarming the population. They are behaving very aggressively.
How does that help anything?
|
On December 31 2012 12:42 Reason wrote:
I want to see the federal government disarmed before even talking about disarming the population. They are behaving very aggressively.
How does that help anything?
My guess would be that was meant to be taken as hyperbole. The point is that there should be a balance of power between the federal agencies and the people they are meant to serve. If a reduction of arms is asked of one side, the same should be asked of the other. In the past few decades, America's military industrial complex has needed a reason to continue building things because it has been a large part of our economy since the 40's. With the absence of global war, or the threat of, these companies began selling to police and security forces. While American citizens are constantly being asked to disarm themselves for the good of society, these federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have continuously modernized to the point of being better equipped than most other countries military forces. A concept that is made even more terrifying when compared to the facilities and equipment our governments have funded for our public education systems, even if they have recently been getting some long needed attention.
|
On December 31 2012 15:38 iplayBANJO wrote:
The point is that there should be a balance of power between the federal agencies and the people they are meant to serve. If a reduction of arms is asked of one side, the same should be asked of the other.
Why???
You make it sound like you're two bordering nations that are involved in ongoing peace talks...
|
people who dont trust their own democracy are the biggest proponents of spreading democracy around the world. Just lovely.
|
On January 01 2013 01:23 Skilledblob wrote:
people who dont trust their own democracy government are the biggest proponents of spreading democracy limited government around the world. Just lovely.
I am a big proponent of spreading democracy. I know in your mind that can only equate to "forcibly invade their nation and dismantle their government," but not in my mind.
|
On December 31 2012 23:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 15:38 iplayBANJO wrote:
The point is that there should be a balance of power between the federal agencies and the people they are meant to serve. If a reduction of arms is asked of one side, the same should be asked of the other. Why??? You make it sound like you're two bordering nations that are involved in ongoing peace talks...
Where I live there's enough military traffic that there are tank crossing signs along some of the roads, it's not uncommon to hear live fire exercises which are the most common cause of fires in the area, and the majority of the aircraft I see belong to the military. To get from my home to my work I pass through a permanent border patrol checkpoint where I have, several times, been pulled to the side of the road where myself and my vehicle are thoroughly searched. I work in breweries and live near a casino, so I also find myself often driving through DUI checkpoints where I am often pulled from my vehicle and forced to take sobriety tests before I can continue home. I'm not in ongoing peace talks with a bordering nation, I'm in ongoing negotiations with a military occupation. That last statement is hyperbole, but it helps illustrate what democracy is to me.
On January 01 2013 01:23 Skilledblob wrote:
people who dont trust their own democracy are the biggest proponents of spreading democracy around the world. Just lovely.
In my opinion, people should never trust their government. Putting faith and trust in an organization with the amount of power over your life that a government has will eventually always be a bad thing. That's why democracy is a more stable long term government than any other available forms; representatives can be voted out of office when and if those they represent lose faith in them. The availability of one good option does not mean we remove the possibility of any others though.
|
On December 31 2012 23:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 15:38 iplayBANJO wrote:
The point is that there should be a balance of power between the federal agencies and the people they are meant to serve. If a reduction of arms is asked of one side, the same should be asked of the other. Why??? You make it sound like you're two bordering nations that are involved in ongoing peace talks...
What is so bad about the government actually having to listen to its people?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Well its I assume always been known that guns reduce violent crime but increase the murder rate (and subsequently the successful suicide rate).
All this business about assault weapon bans are just noise for politicians. If they make a big fuss about them on both sides it'll seem like a real policy thing is going on when in reality it doesn't really effect any situation in anyway. It works for the pro gun control people as it makes it seem like their politicians are getting stuff done in Washington and it works for the anti gun control people as it gives them something to fight about and pull severely away from the majority of guns that they own.
Nobody is really going to come out and blame all our crime problem on the minorities. Its not a racial thing when its pure statistics but in politics its the same way and neither party is willing to lose votes when what they're doing now works for them anyway.
|
So that guy states that UK has lower murder rate, yet that is somehow dismissed?
UK homicide rate = 1.2, %Caused by firearms = 8 (England and Wales)
USA homicide rate = 4.2, %Caused by firearms = 65
Nevertheless, this is not the issue. Criminals will always get guns, and crime will always happen. The reason semi-automatics should be banned is so that little Johnny with undiagnosed mental problems can't take a gun from his parents cabinet and shoot up a school when he has an episode.
|
On January 01 2013 13:27 eSen1a wrote:So that guy states that UK has lower murder rate, yet that is somehow dismissed? UK homicide rate = 1.2, %Caused by firearms = 8 (England and Wales) USA homicide rate = 4.2, %Caused by firearms = 65 Nevertheless, this is not the issue. Criminals will always get guns, and crime will always happen. The reason semi-automatics should be banned is so that little Johnny with undiagnosed mental problems can't take a gun from his parents cabinet and shoot up a school when he has an episode.
How do you say that criminals will always get guns and crimes will always happen and then use that somehow to justify a law to ban guns from potential criminals? How do you say that crime is not the issue and then justify a gun ban because of a crime? These are the things that really confused the anti gun control side of things.
And He reasoned that though the rest of the video trying to say how it is because we have more metropolitan areas and thus more high crime high poverty high murder areas. Although even if these metro areas have double the national average for murders and violent crimes it still means that the non metro areas have a 2.1ish% homicide rate.
|
On January 01 2013 13:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 13:27 eSen1a wrote:So that guy states that UK has lower murder rate, yet that is somehow dismissed? UK homicide rate = 1.2, %Caused by firearms = 8 (England and Wales) USA homicide rate = 4.2, %Caused by firearms = 65 Nevertheless, this is not the issue. Criminals will always get guns, and crime will always happen. The reason semi-automatics should be banned is so that little Johnny with undiagnosed mental problems can't take a gun from his parents cabinet and shoot up a school when he has an episode. How do you say that criminals will always get guns and crimes will always happen and then use that somehow to justify a law to ban guns from potential criminals? How do you say that crime is not the issue and then justify a gun ban because of a crime? These are the things that really confused the anti gun control side of things.
You can hardly call a mass killing by someone with huge mental issues a crime. It is much more than just a crime. The reasons behind it, the people targeted, and the perceived reward are nothing like 99% of violent crimes. The average criminal is not going to shoot 20 children, or even kill innocent people without a good reason. In Australia many criminals have guns, yet there is very little gun violence. When there is gun violence, the overwhelming majority injured or killed are associated with criminals. What I'm trying to say is that a gun in the hands of a criminal is much less dangerous than in the hands of someone with serious mental issues.
|
On January 01 2013 14:54 eSen1a wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On January 01 2013 13:27 eSen1a wrote:So that guy states that UK has lower murder rate, yet that is somehow dismissed? UK homicide rate = 1.2, %Caused by firearms = 8 (England and Wales) USA homicide rate = 4.2, %Caused by firearms = 65 Nevertheless, this is not the issue. Criminals will always get guns, and crime will always happen. The reason semi-automatics should be banned is so that little Johnny with undiagnosed mental problems can't take a gun from his parents cabinet and shoot up a school when he has an episode. How do you say that criminals will always get guns and crimes will always happen and then use that somehow to justify a law to ban guns from potential criminals? How do you say that crime is not the issue and then justify a gun ban because of a crime? These are the things that really confused the anti gun control side of things. You can hardly call a mass killing by someone with huge mental issues a crime. It is much more than just a crime. The reasons behind it, the people targeted, and the perceived reward are nothing like 99% of violent crimes. The average criminal is not going to shoot 20 children, or even kill innocent people without a good reason. In Australia many criminals have guns, yet there is very little gun violence. When there is gun violence, the overwhelming majority injured or killed are associated with criminals. What I'm trying to say is that a gun in the hands of a criminal is much less dangerous than in the hands of someone with serious mental issues.
I'm going to call it a crime because thats what it is. You can't approach problems like this with any intent to solve them if you go into it emotionally and hyper focus on single events when there more and larger horrors that go on every year. How is it any different that more kids die over a longer period of time in inner cities like chicago who are trying (and failing miserably) to institute gun control in their area. People doing horrible things because of mental problems is a cultural thing not a legislation thing. If you really want to lower the amount of kids that get shot every year you should be more focused on the inner city socioeconomic problems that cause the homicide rates that america has. If we really want things like this to change we need to reduce the social stigma of mental health problems and give people a way to get help instead of putting barriers up and expecting that making it harder for them to do horrible things is going to change them doing it.
|
The Journal News of West Nyack, N.Y., has hired armed security guards to defend its offices after receiving a torrent of phone calls and emails responding to the paper's publication of the names and addresses of area residents with pistol permits.
RGA Investigations, a private security company, "is doing private security at on location at the Journal News as a result of the negative response to the article," according to a police report first obtained by the Rockland County Times (Nanuet, N.Y.) and shared with POLITICO. The guards "are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-hires-armed-security-guards-153103.html
Pretty damn ironic. xD
|
I don't like the idea of a powerful and unaccountable organization using violent threats, that I must take seriously due to their guns, to ensure that I do not have guns of my own.
|
On January 01 2013 13:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2013 13:27 eSen1a wrote:So that guy states that UK has lower murder rate, yet that is somehow dismissed? UK homicide rate = 1.2, %Caused by firearms = 8 (England and Wales) USA homicide rate = 4.2, %Caused by firearms = 65 Nevertheless, this is not the issue. Criminals will always get guns, and crime will always happen. The reason semi-automatics should be banned is so that little Johnny with undiagnosed mental problems can't take a gun from his parents cabinet and shoot up a school when he has an episode. How do you say that criminals will always get guns and crimes will always happen and then use that somehow to justify a law to ban guns from potential criminals? How do you say that crime is not the issue and then justify a gun ban because of a crime? These are the things that really confused the anti gun control side of things. And He reasoned that though the rest of the video trying to say how it is because we have more metropolitan areas and thus more high crime high poverty high murder areas. Although even if these metro areas have double the national average for murders and violent crimes it still means that the non metro areas have a 2.1ish% homicide rate.
That wasn't being used as a justification it was simply a statement of fact. You've selected a few words from his post and then engineered a response which makes no sense at all. You're not the first person to have done this and I'm actually shocked at the poor level of responses I've found in this thread... not sure I'll be responding to any of these comments after reading over them.
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Guns themselves are not the problem, I'm hoping to get a .357 magnum revolver myself simply because I like the design and like how it fires. The problem is that we do not do proper background checks and we do not enforce the laws we already have; this is why crazies are allowed to get their hands on guns so easily.
Besides, if people are desperate enough, they are going to find a way...it's depressing but it's true...
|
With 2 exceptions, in the past 50 years every single mass shooting (4+ people dead) has taken place within a gun free zone. This should tell us something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
