|
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 January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete.
Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it.
|
On January 17 2013 03:05 joeschmo wrote:
So, what happens if a person buys a gun then years later becomes mentally ill? Does the government confiscate it?
Its a possibility. They would probably let you pass it to a family member first, or so I hope.
|
On January 17 2013 03:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete. Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it.
Yeah.......the focus only narrows. The point is that people care about things closest to them, and I don't need the Joker to tell me that.
|
On January 17 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:07 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete. Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it. Yeah.......the focus only narrows. The point is that people care about things closest to them.
But that's irrational, and definitely isn't something lawmakers should do.
|
On January 17 2013 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:07 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete. Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it. Yeah.......the focus only narrows. The point is that people care about things closest to them. But that's irrational, and definitely isn't something lawmakers should do.
At what point did I mention this phenomena in regards to lawmakers? In any case, the system of regional representation we currently have disagrees with you, along with the behavior of pretty much every representative and most senators. Many representatives consider the allegiance to their constituency more important than the allegiance to the nation, just look at the pet projects of folks like Ron Paul. "Tear down the Fed! But in the meantime, allow me to grace Galveston with as much pork as I can get."
I don't agree with this sort of thinking, but it is commonplace.
|
On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:
......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete.
The point was more about order vs chaos, or just things that happen outside our established order. It's not just about distance. "The farther away a tragic event occurs, the less impact it has on the average individual" - sure, I don't disagree with this hypothesis. But I'd also like to add: "the more unusual a tragic event is to the societal order of the average individual, the more impact it will have". An example, I suppose, would be the missing white woman syndrome. Thousands of people are murdered in America every year, but it would seem that mass media outlets don't cover each incident equally.
EDIT:
To build off the Detroit example, the fact that the murder happened in Detroit, which is likely far away in relation to the poster who made it, is not the point - the fact is that it happened in Detroit, a city that has suffered high levels of poverty and has one of the highest crime rates in America.
|
On January 17 2013 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:07 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete. Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it. Yeah.......the focus only narrows. The point is that people care about things closest to them. But that's irrational, and definitely isn't something lawmakers should do.
I disagree. Lawmakers should almost exclusively care about what happens local to them. That's where their laws have an effect. What would be the point to passing laws based on events in China that would only have an effect in the US?
The sad thing is that this issue was brought up based on something from entertainment media, which is unfortunately something that effects the perceptions of the general population, possible voters, all the time. People watch a lot of Law and Order, NCIS, CSI, and begin to think there's a large problem with crime and vote accordingly. So not only are voting on events foreign to us, but we are voting on fictional events as well. Unfortunately, American news media has become an entertainment media and feeds into this phenomenon as well, which doesn't help anything.
PS. If someone has sources on this I would appreciate them listing a few. I know I've read a lot about this in a college humanities class, Niel Postman is one author I think, but I can't find anything on the web at the moment.
|
On January 16 2013 04:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:39 Mentalizor wrote:On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. ...so... You (smokeyhoodoo) think the reason guns should be legal is to defend yourself from your government? There is a huge difference in army and militia. No country would ever disarm their army. But having trained, professional soldiers carry weapons is a whole other story than your average joe carrying around hand guns... Sorry for being so scandinavian - and clichée... But look at the numbers... Guns won't defend you from guns... You're more likely to die/kill if you own a gun than if you don't. Trained professionals murdered that family at Ruby Ridge. Trained professionals murdered those people at Waco. Trained professionals fired on students at Kent State. Just because they're official, uniformed, and trained doesn't make them angels.
Unfortunatly, I don't know all the events you speak of. However, no - of course they are not angels. But that's (yet again) just your american ways that seems different from ours. The only armed soldiers I see are either soldiers on their way to some exercise - or the royal guard... And honestly, sure aren't angels... But no guard on duty would ever even get close to doing anything during his shift. And in far the major cases soldiers have no right to bear arms when off duty.
So no, it's not the matter of the guns... It's a question of the people... And there will always be loony people wanting to hurt others... However, if you - as a nation/government - change your way to handle guns and gun laws, I think you're in a far better position than simply tossing out guns to everyone. It's false security
|
On January 17 2013 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 03:10 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 03:07 Millitron wrote:On January 17 2013 03:04 farvacola wrote:On January 17 2013 02:59 Warlock40 wrote:On January 16 2013 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 16 2013 10:31 Nagano wrote:
You brought up very many good points. I just had an interesting point I wanted to add to this particular comment. It kind of reminds me of the scene in The Dark Knight where the Joker gives a speech to Dent. Many people die every day to gun violence, most of then being gang-related. People don't focus on the real issues underlying gun violence, which are socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health issues. So what happens when an event like Newtown happens is that people freak out not remembering that gun violence happens every day, but no one freaks out about it because a bunch of poor black youth killing each other is, frankly, something this country doesn't care about and is "all part of the plan", or expected, more or less. It's better to blame the guns than the real issues. Amusingly, the Joker's speech only works on an emotionally distraught man who is doped up on painkillers. Most everyone else realizes that the whole thing is a load of crock, because people freak about all that stuff that's "part of the plan" all the time, on a constant basis...and often on a national level. I disagree. Don't want to sound like a TDK fanboy here, but the Joker is spot on right there. Bad stuff happens every day but people filter most of it out. Car bombings killed at least twenty people in Syria today; at least 87 people died there yesterday in an attack at a university. But I'm willing to bet that, family ties aside, this doesn't really affect you on an emotional level, because it certainly won't for most people in, say, America. You might think, "oh, that's too bad", or "my, how tragic", but then go on to rationalise it: "it's a civil war, of course people are going to die" or "it's the Middle East, there's always conflict going on". What if those car bombs went off in an American town? What if, maybe "just" a dozen people were killed at a Canadian university? It would be on the news for weeks. Why? Because car bombs and shootings are "supposed" to happen in Syria, or Iraq, or some other poor third world locale in constant turmoil. That's "part of the plan".They're not supposed to happen in America, or Canada. Dozens beheaded in Mexico? Sad, but that's gang violence and the drug war for you. Someone beheaded in your neighbourhood? Front page guaranteed, how terrible, people will be freaking out. And so on. ......Don't you think that US citizens caring more about violence on US soil has something to do with the violence occurring......you know.......in the US? I mean, it's nice to be able to use quotes from popular movies to make a point, but a critique of our "society of the spectacle" is probably better founded in something a little more concrete. Except it works inside the US too. Someone got shot in Detroit? That's sad, but you move on pretty quickly. Someone gets shot in your town, its all over the news and everyone spends months talking about it. Yeah.......the focus only narrows. The point is that people care about things closest to them. But that's irrational, and definitely isn't something lawmakers should do.
Irrational? How do you define that? I think it's the exact opposite... It's quite rational to react upon events in your community. It's easier for you to understand and actually put you in a position to judge what would be better - and how this can be avoided in the future...
I don't expect you would think it is a good idea to have the Danish prime minister dictating laws for the U.S.? It's better to have someone who actually know what's up in the local area.
|
On January 17 2013 05:00 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:39 Mentalizor wrote:On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. ...so... You (smokeyhoodoo) think the reason guns should be legal is to defend yourself from your government? There is a huge difference in army and militia. No country would ever disarm their army. But having trained, professional soldiers carry weapons is a whole other story than your average joe carrying around hand guns... Sorry for being so scandinavian - and clichée... But look at the numbers... Guns won't defend you from guns... You're more likely to die/kill if you own a gun than if you don't. Trained professionals murdered that family at Ruby Ridge. Trained professionals murdered those people at Waco. Trained professionals fired on students at Kent State. Just because they're official, uniformed, and trained doesn't make them angels. Unfortunatly, I don't know all the events you speak of. However, no - of course they are not angels. But that's (yet again) just your american ways that seems different from ours. The only armed soldiers I see are either soldiers on their way to some exercise - or the royal guard... And honestly, sure aren't angels... But no guard on duty would ever even get close to doing anything during his shift. And in far the major cases soldiers have no right to bear arms when off duty. So no, it's not the matter of the guns... It's a question of the people... And there will always be loony people wanting to hurt others... However, if you - as a nation/government - change your way to handle guns and gun laws, I think you're in a far better position than simply tossing out guns to everyone. It's false security
You should read the Wikipedia pages at the least, because Ruby Ridge and Waco are not good events to use as evidence in support of the 2nd amendment. They were basically religious cults with Armageddon prophecies who isolated and armed themselves. The weaver family in the Ruby Ridge events in particular were completely paranoid to the point of being, I believe, a danger to those around them. They had like 20 acres of land in a remote area too, so them being that isolated and still being a danger to those around them means I think they were pretty nutty. I don't particularly think that the law enforcement handled the situations perfectly, but I don't exactly disagree with the idea that those people should be disarmed.
|
I think it is wierd that everyone is able to own and carry their own gun.
|
Haha, all these crazy ideas to solve guns. I've even seen stories about making a fingerprint lock on the safety or something and so only the owner (or maybe more if there was such a technology to have multi-fingerprints to unlock something?) with authorized access could use the weapon.
It seemed really fancy, but just based on how it sounded it seemed really expensive, not to mention I don't know anything about a gun to the point of knowing how realistic it'd be (probably not I'm assuming).
|
On January 17 2013 05:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Haha, all these crazy ideas to solve guns. I've even seen stories about making a fingerprint lock on the safety or something and so only the owner (or maybe more if there was such a technology to have multi-fingerprints to unlock something?) with authorized access could use the weapon.
It seemed really fancy, but just based on how it sounded it seemed really expensive, not to mention I don't know anything about a gun to the point of knowing how realistic it'd be (probably not I'm assuming).
Well, it'd be technically possible, but it would be almost useless as an aftermarket thing, it would have to be an integral feature, else it would be easily disabled/removed.
This is ignoring the parts where extra ounces are bad for carry, and the part where you'd need some REALLY fucking reliable biometric technology if you were going to entrust your safety to it. And what if you don't get enough recognized fingerprints to store both hands of you and your wife? What if you have to go left handed to defend yourself?
|
The USA has started to prepare for the massive revolts coming soon, unless the economic situation miraculously gets better. They are starting to feel the danger(in the form of school shootings happening more often).
Besides that, I don't think it's okay for a developed nation to allow every idiot on the block to carry a gun. It only promotes crime. Because the "less educated" don't often know how to talk their problems out, they reduce themselves to meaningless violence.
|
|
|
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind.
|
On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind.
Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime.
|
On January 17 2013 07:38 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime.
It appears you may have missed a major news event from December
|
On January 17 2013 01:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 00:39 TheFrankOne wrote:On January 16 2013 10:26 Kimaker wrote:On January 16 2013 10:19 BluePanther wrote:
I have determined that there is only one solution to solve this debate....
BULLETPROOF BUBBLE-BALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Seriously, there is a point here. You cannot stop every random act of violence. Don't let fear dictate your life. Too bad all the anti-gun people have fled, none to hear your point and tell you it's wrong. I imagine that someone will come in here with the St. Louis shooting soon and try and parade that as more evidence that we need gun-control. The tone of this thread makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation. It's turned into one of those general forums threads that one side has "won" just by being louder and having more people. I got told I was wrong multiple times with no argument, just "you're wrong," and then had my points strawmanned when I was trying to point out that guns are intended for killing. This is something I learned as a hunter, coming from a family of hunters. The cavalier attitude some people in this thread seem to have towards guns scares me and I hope you all keep proper gun safety in mind at all times, all it takes is one small slip up. Edit: The gun safety comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, so nobody take it personally please. But saying guns are intended for killing IS a strawman...and it fails to represent that not all shots are to kill and that some guns are bought for self defense. A gun without ammunition is pretty useless, but it certainly could scare off an attacker.
Do you mean not all shots are to kill when being fired at a living thing or are you talking about firing at a range/not living things?
Buying a gun for self-defense doesn't really refute my point because killing an attacker is a sure way of defending yourself. If you're going to argue that guns are at all efficacious for self defense without ammunition I will argue you should just have a fake gun since it would be just as useful but if your attacker didn't back down he could get bullets for a real gun after he stole it, not a fake one though.
|
On January 17 2013 07:44 lachy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 07:38 DannyJ wrote:On January 17 2013 07:35 lachy89 wrote:
Disregarding the fact that not everyone in the US should be allowed to carry a gun... Why the fuck are citizens allowed to own an Assault rifle or a sub-machine gun? What an absolutely ridiculous idea. What possible purpose do these weapons have other than mass murder?
Why are Americans so slow to input laws around these weapons of war? It blows my mind. Probably because those "weapons of war" are almost non existent when it comes to gun crime. It appears you may have missed a major news event from December
and there were 30 people killed by guns every day since then, almost all from handguns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
