|
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. |
Is there anything with a worse ratio of <practical use vs possibility of abuse> than guns?
|
On January 05 2013 15:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 15:13 Destine3 wrote:
i hate to see people use the phrase "ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!" Cause they KNOW that is like that so the British wouldnt come into our houses and kill us (along with wild bear... -_-) some hundred years ago. It is obvious that times has changed and the laws should flex along with it. Except that's not why it's in the Bill of Rights. It's in the BoR because the founding fathers wanted to the people to always be able to defend themselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. " - Thomas Jefferson
And you're going to live your life according to the words of a spoony old president? There's some truth in those words, but as a generalization it's not true. You have to put it in the right context. The whole concept of democracy relies on the fact that the ppl can peacefully overthrow the government whenever they want. If you live in a democracy, there is no need whatsoever to be afraid of the government. Does the government fear the ppl today? I think they do atleast here in Sweden, but then our media is much more independent than in USA. Still, I believe that the same is true for USA, just that the american politicians have more faith in projecting their beliefs to the ppl, aka propaganda. But propaganda in itself, although dangerous, doesn't eliminate democracy, and for the most part, it's up to the opposing parties to expose the propaganda. But how well democracy works in a country, depends on to what extent the common ppl uses common sense.
The way that americans idolize the "founding fathers" is scary, because it's that exact behaviour that lead to the communistic personality cults, and the islamic theocracies. When ppl don't think for themselves, and just accept what certain "wise ppl" are saying as the truth, you become a slave.
Some of you claim that the founding fathers had every possible future scenario in mind, when they formed the ammendments. Prove it!
Think of it like this. If the 2nd ammendment didn't exist, then would you have added it today, and for what reason? That's how you should look at it. If you don't criticize old laws, you can't have democracy.
The founding fathers don't have all the answers. Look at the world at that time. The height of colonization, and the height of slavery. USA was actually the only country that sent for slaves, (they transported them from Africa to America), while the british and other european powers mainly used domestic slave labour in their colonies. Most of the british blacks are descended from the Caribbeans, from their colonies, while most of the black americans are from Africa, where the white americans never even set their foot on.
|
On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns.
Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately.
Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns.
1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe?
2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders.
|
On January 09 2013 21:41 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 15:18 Millitron wrote:On January 05 2013 15:13 Destine3 wrote:
i hate to see people use the phrase "ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!" Cause they KNOW that is like that so the British wouldnt come into our houses and kill us (along with wild bear... -_-) some hundred years ago. It is obvious that times has changed and the laws should flex along with it. Except that's not why it's in the Bill of Rights. It's in the BoR because the founding fathers wanted to the people to always be able to defend themselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. " - Thomas Jefferson And you're going to live your life according to the words of a spoony old president? There's some truth in those words, but as a generalization it's not true. You have to put it in the right context. The whole concept of democracy relies on the fact that the ppl can peacefully overthrow the government whenever they want. If you live in a democracy, there is no need whatsoever to be afraid of the government. Does the government fear the ppl today? I think they do atleast here in Sweden, but then our media is much more independent than in USA. Still, I believe that the same is true for USA, just that the american politicians have more faith in projecting their beliefs to the ppl, aka propaganda. But propaganda in itself, although dangerous, doesn't eliminate democracy, and for the most part, it's up to the opposing parties to expose the propaganda. But how well democracy works in a country, depends on to what extent the common ppl uses common sense. The way that americans idolize the "founding fathers" is scary, because it's that exact behaviour that lead to the communistic personality cults, and the islamic theocracies. When ppl don't think for themselves, and just accept what certain "wise ppl" are saying as the truth, you become a slave. Some of you claim that the founding fathers had every possible future scenario in mind, when they formed the ammendments. Prove it! Think of it like this. If the 2nd ammendment didn't exist, then would you have added it today, and for what reason? That's how you should look at it. If you don't criticize old laws, you can't have democracy. The founding fathers don't have all the answers. Look at the world at that time. The height of colonization, and the height of slavery. USA was actually the only country that sent for slaves, (they transported them from Africa to America), while the british and other european powers mainly used domestic slave labour in their colonies. Most of the british blacks are descended from the Caribbeans, from their colonies, while most of the black americans are from Africa, where the white americans never even set their foot on.
Spoony old president? Stopped reading right there. Well, actually I read on. Only until "If you live in a democracy there is no need to be afraid of the government". Then I stopped
It's amazing how black and white some people in the thread are. Seriously dude, are you like 12 years old or something? Those are the most ridiculous posts Ive read in this thread
|
I take that back actually ninini, I looked at an older post of yours that said that this "this the real world, not gotham city."
Thats cool that you live in Sweden mate. If you would like to educate yourself on just how wrong this statement is and your belief that criminals are not out to get you, please make a trip to Detroit here in the states.
|
On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders.
Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken.
|
United States43611 Posts
On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:
However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation...
Your post was all statistical analysis right up to that point where you made the leap to the conclusion that guns are the problem without showing your workings. Unfortunately you could make the exact same post and then insert whatever sensible explanation the writer found sensible. And even then, it could just be that the UK and the US aren't directly comparable.
|
On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken.
I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town?
|
On January 09 2013 22:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:
However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation... Your post was all statistical analysis right up to that point where you made the leap to the conclusion that guns are the problem without showing your workings. Unfortunately you could make the exact same post and then insert whatever sensible explanation the writer found sensible. And even then, it could just be that the UK and the US aren't directly comparable.
Fair point, that explanation is completely off speculation but what are the explanations that you can think of?
On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken.
Well it's probably a rich middle class town, a mormon town or somewhere in New Hampshire then? I'm not sure how that affects the point that in countries where the violent crime rates are equal, the place with the guns everywhere has the considerably higher murder rate...we also have towns in the UK with virtually 0 crime.
|
On January 09 2013 22:12 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:07 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:
However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation... Your post was all statistical analysis right up to that point where you made the leap to the conclusion that guns are the problem without showing your workings. Unfortunately you could make the exact same post and then insert whatever sensible explanation the writer found sensible. And even then, it could just be that the UK and the US aren't directly comparable. Fair point, that explanation is completely off speculation but what are the explanations that you can think of?
Before i start the following things may not be true but are EXAMPLES of POSSIBLE alternatives:
There are a higher proportion of people living in extremist minority communities in the US that have access to extreme views from an early age, and are more prone to psychological problems...
The US has a more conformist society in which people who don't conform are more likely to feel marginalized and have a grudge against others...
The US has a much higher population than the UK, and therefore there will be more psychologically ill people (not per head, but more total). These are the people who are responsible for mass killings which increase the number of murders per head.
and the biggest one:
There is a much more rife and violent gang culture in parts of the US.
|
On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town?
He basically said that he is lucky that there aren't any crazy enough guys in his town so that they don't have gun murders. Normal people with guns = no crime. Crazy people with guns = more crime I guess, then again, overall, stabbings are way more common than gun murders. If you have crazy people, poor education in some areas in the world, no oportunity, drug lords, etc, you have murders.
Every time I come here I read the same things and I say the same things. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You don't want mass school shootings ? Ban guns. You don't want massacres ? Regulate ever single chemical ingredient that may go into making bombs....basically a completely totalitarian government you must have in order for there to be no mass killings ( assuming your totalitarian government won't abuse it's power - which is crazy talk ). What about the unibomber ? What about Timothy McVeigh ? What about all those crazy people in the middle east that blow themselves out. What about Mexico with complete ban on guns and extremely high gun murder rates ?
Social problems and mental problems lead to crime, not the accesibility to weapons.
|
On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town?
Yea, sure, why not? I fail to see how guns in my town affects homicide rates elsewhere. And of course I care about other people outside my town, even though that's not applicable considering the previous sentence. I've got family in California, Kentucky, and Germany, as well as friends scattered just about everywhere. All told I'd say I care about a hundred people outside my town.
|
On January 09 2013 22:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town? Yea, sure, why not? I fail to see how guns in my town affects homicide rates elsewhere. And of course I care about other people outside my town, even though that's not applicable considering the previous sentence. I've got family in California, Kentucky, and Germany, as well as friends scattered just about everywhere. All told I'd say I care about a hundred people outside my town.
all i'm saying is i don't get what point you are trying to make... Is it that you think your town should be excluded from any debate or legislation with regards to gun control, because gun crime isn't a problem for you?
|
On January 09 2013 22:26 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town? Yea, sure, why not? I fail to see how guns in my town affects homicide rates elsewhere. And of course I care about other people outside my town, even though that's not applicable considering the previous sentence. I've got family in California, Kentucky, and Germany, as well as friends scattered just about everywhere. All told I'd say I care about a hundred people outside my town. all i'm saying is i don't get what point you are trying to make... Is it that you think your town should be excluded from any debate or legislation with regards to gun control, because gun crime isn't a problem for you?
Yes
|
gun control is complex...at least in the united states. maybe not so much in successfully socialist countries in the eu.
in the u.s. there are reasonable arguments for fairly extreme positions on either side (e.g. unrestricted ownership semi-automatic and below with clean record vs. absolutely no private citizen gun ownership).
it is likely the case that if 1/5 of americans between ages 20 and 40 obtained semi-automatic weapons, body armor, and smartphones they could successfully overthrow their tyrannical government. now who wouldn't want that?
+ Show Spoiler +i personally think we in the united states would do well to focus our attention on gaining rights to own and operate mdma and just roll with that as far as we can take it. could overthrow the tyrannical government and reduce violence simultaneously
i feel that it is very silly to engage in discussion about gun control unless one is able to do so dispassionately. it is a subtle and complex issue with many reasonable viewpoints that one could adopt and successfully defend. it's quite difficult to even understand what one another are saying if you're heavily invested in this or that being established as the right view.
|
On January 09 2013 22:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town? Yea, sure, why not? I fail to see how guns in my town affects homicide rates elsewhere. And of course I care about other people outside my town, even though that's not applicable considering the previous sentence. I've got family in California, Kentucky, and Germany, as well as friends scattered just about everywhere. All told I'd say I care about a hundred people outside my town. all i'm saying is i don't get what point you are trying to make... Is it that you think your town should be excluded from any debate or legislation with regards to gun control, because gun crime isn't a problem for you? Yes
Would be cool with the town having its own borders and shit where customs would have to check for potentially illegal gun smuggle out of town.... Seriously though, you can hardly be for real. If so, you are the personified stereotype that americans have a very narrow perspective not going beyound their own country... or in your case, town T_T
Concerning the topic.. For me its a simple matter of philosophy/state theory. The very abbreviated version: A civilized state needs to have a monopoly on violence. John Lockes Leviathan is a classic considering what a state is. Letting people own guns freely imo contradicts the states monopoly on violence - it supports the notion of self justice. Self justice is not part of a civilized state/society. Thus, the USA is not a civilized state/society.
|
On January 09 2013 23:14 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:30 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 22:26 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town? Yea, sure, why not? I fail to see how guns in my town affects homicide rates elsewhere. And of course I care about other people outside my town, even though that's not applicable considering the previous sentence. I've got family in California, Kentucky, and Germany, as well as friends scattered just about everywhere. All told I'd say I care about a hundred people outside my town. all i'm saying is i don't get what point you are trying to make... Is it that you think your town should be excluded from any debate or legislation with regards to gun control, because gun crime isn't a problem for you? Yes Would be cool with the town having its own borders and shit where customs would have to check for potentially illegal gun smuggle out of town.... Seriously though, you can hardly be for real. If so, you are the personified stereotype that americans have a very narrow perspective not going beyound their own country... or in your case, town T_T
Its actually my own skin in my case, but yea you've got us figured out.
|
I think having guns is important, but I don't see why people need to be able to buy automatic rifles. The amount of people who use them for recreational purposes is really small, and its not like a shotgun/rifle/pistol will be insufficient for self defense. Especially the first two.
|
On January 09 2013 21:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 21:13 Velr wrote:
"Fun" fact:
After the recent shooting in the US gun sales went up.
After the recent shooting in Switzerland, more people than before gave up their gun ownership.
It's just a diffrent mentality you cowboys got over there ^^. Arguing about it is pointless because for some reason, guns in the US seem to be a very emotional thing, seemingly to the extend of nearly being something religious.
You can't argue with faith, be it faith in god or faith in guns... Its hard to argue with an irrational fear of firearms derived from not growing up around and shooting them. I live in rural america. We go shooting regularly, regardless of political beliefs. Most people own guns, again, regardless of their political beliefs. I shot guns before I was 10. When some city slicker tells me my culture is unacceptable it sounds snobbish, arrogant, and self-important. The last murder in my town was years ago, and wasn't even done with a gun. We're not worried about it.
Your problem is... We also grow up "around" guns, ffs ~60-70% of the male population is undergoing military training with an assault rifle... So there is hardly some "irrational fear" of guns, it's just that most non-hunters/sport-shooters don't see a (smart) use for them in our day to day lives and therefore many of us rather remove the possible danger out of our lives instead of having it in case some weird scenario happens.
I see were you coming from and I actually agree that guns aren't the problem, BUT guns are easily capable of making existing problems unload in a terrible way and on top of that can and do create very sad accidents.
|
United States24755 Posts
On January 09 2013 23:37 Coriolis wrote:
I think having guns is important, but I don't see why people need to be able to buy automatic rifles. The amount of people who use them for recreational purposes is really small, and its not like a shotgun/rifle/pistol will be insufficient for self defense. Especially the first two.
I haven't heard of any crimes being committed in the USA with fully automatic weapons in quite a long time... so I don't get your point. Are you suggesting we don't need machine guns, or that we actually don't need semi-automatic guns? If the latter, then many/most rifles, many shotguns, and most pistols are semi-automatic. Many other guns are not technically automatic but can still store several bullets in a clip/magazine, and have a very easy reloading action so you can still fire off a shot every second or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
