• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:09
CEST 08:09
KST 15:09
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202531RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams2Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 506 users

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

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 369 370 371 372 373 891 Next
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4748 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-21 00:51:59
January 21 2013 00:49 GMT
#7401
On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?

What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that.


Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation.
Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control).

I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless.

I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this?
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
ElvisWayCool
Profile Joined March 2010
United States437 Posts
January 21 2013 00:55 GMT
#7402
On January 21 2013 09:49 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?

What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that.


Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation.
Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control).

I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless.

I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this?


The Aurora shooter used one of these (and a shotgun and a pistol) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15

And what if someone put the time and money into researching and producing a type of taser that had range and multiple rounds. That would intimidate me, and possibly save lives.
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4748 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-21 01:02:22
January 21 2013 01:01 GMT
#7403
On January 21 2013 09:55 ElvisWayCool wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 09:49 Introvert wrote:
On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?

What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that.


Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation.
Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control).

I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless.

I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this?


The Aurora shooter used one of these (and a shotgun and a pistol) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15

And what if someone put the time and money into researching and producing a type of taser that had range and multiple rounds. That would intimidate me, and possibly save lives.



Should have been more clear. He used a very limited version of an assault rifle. It's semi-auto. One pull, one round. Could have done the same damage with handguns (Virginia tech). point is, banning these rifles would not prevent these things from happening when such a thing as gun-free zones still exist.

Then someone can research that and people can buy it if they want. I tend to think a solid round more reliable than a taser pin, though. I would think 5 gunman vs 5 taserman would still be pretty one sided. But no such things exists in the first place.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
January 21 2013 01:04 GMT
#7404
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.
Who called in the fleet?
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
January 21 2013 01:24 GMT
#7405
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.


Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
January 21 2013 01:37 GMT
#7406
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.

Anybody seriously attempting to prevent every act of violence and every murder by enacting any measure of gun control is an idiot.

At the same time, anybody who perceives these measures to reduce gun violence as an attempt to stop all massacres is also an idiot.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
January 21 2013 01:42 GMT
#7407
On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.


Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...

The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Dawski
Profile Joined September 2010
Canada435 Posts
January 21 2013 01:55 GMT
#7408
On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.


Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...

The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.

Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?

do you REALLY want additional pylons?
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
January 21 2013 01:58 GMT
#7409
On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:
On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.


Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...

The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.

Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?



I'm kind of confused by his statement as well, the process is absurd and does deserve ridicule because it is nonsensical.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
January 21 2013 02:07 GMT
#7410
On January 21 2013 10:37 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.

Anybody seriously attempting to prevent every act of violence and every murder by enacting any measure of gun control is an idiot.

At the same time, anybody who perceives these measures to reduce gun violence as an attempt to stop all massacres is also an idiot.

What makes gun violence worse than regular violence? Guns are just the tools the criminals choose. Get rid of them, either they just get illegal guns, or they switch to some other weapon. Gun control is just treating symptoms, when you should be treating the disease. The disease is socioeconomic strife, and a nonsense War on Drugs. If you improve the economic conditions in the inner city, and if you loosen drug laws so fewer harmless stoners do hard time, you will see a drastic drop in ALL crime rates, not just gun crime.
Who called in the fleet?
YumYumGranola
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada346 Posts
January 21 2013 02:18 GMT
#7411
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.
llIH
Profile Joined June 2011
Norway2143 Posts
January 21 2013 02:27 GMT
#7412
Didn't the statistics show that there were less murders in areas where guns were allowed?

I am against the right to own machine guns and automatic sub machine guns.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
January 21 2013 02:30 GMT
#7413
On January 21 2013 11:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.


Haha, and we can derive this from Plato by way of Mao!

I like this. Take the guns away from everyone who currently has one, and give one to everyone who currently doesn't, then see what happens.
shikata ga nai
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-21 02:41:02
January 21 2013 02:35 GMT
#7414
On January 21 2013 11:27 KAB00000000M wrote:
Didn't the statistics show that there were less murders in areas where guns were allowed?

I am against the right to own machine guns and automatic sub machine guns.

People already don't have automatics. They're technically legal, Federally, but they're so expensive, and the red tape so thick practically no one has them.

On January 21 2013 11:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.

That's because you only hear about the ones who shouldn't own them. There's approximately 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. The ones who should not own guns are an extremely small minority. But the news doesn't report on the 99,000,000 who don't cause problems, do they?
Who called in the fleet?
radscorpion9
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Canada2252 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-21 02:56:52
January 21 2013 02:52 GMT
#7415
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible.

If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible.

I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-21 03:22:18
January 21 2013 03:18 GMT
#7416
On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible.

If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible.

I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda.

Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's.

As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding.

In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman.
Who called in the fleet?
CapnAmerica
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States508 Posts
January 21 2013 04:09 GMT
#7417
On January 21 2013 09:24 Introvert wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 09:19 CapnAmerica wrote:
On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.

I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it.


I can't speak to this directly, but it's generally accepted in the U.S. that the NRA is full of nuts. There are plenty of reasonable people who are members as well, but those in power are on par with the heads of the current conservative Republican party. Bad politics.


Actually, the NRA has a higher favorability rating than Congress and the president (41%ish). I don't know where you get your news to think that is "generally accepted."


Most people that I know who are in favor of people owning firearms of any kind (this is anecdotal) feel that the NRA is a negative political organization outside of the fact that it happens to unite people who would like to own a gun. Bringing in stats for the President and Congress is a little silly to me, as I would never say that the current President or Congress are fanatical or totally inept. Except in jest.

Also, I was never polled on what I think about the NRA -- where and when a study like that is performed and who is included have a huge impact.

And, as an aside, 41% still means the majority is not in favor of it...



On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote:+ Show Spoiler +

On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.


Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...

The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.

Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?



I think the point that he's making is that it's much harder to stay irrationally angry for extended periods of time without the means to commit crimes easily. Guns don't commit crimes, but they make it way easier to inflict more damage in less time for less effort, and without as much of a visceral connection with your victims as, say, a knife.

Taking the guns out of the equation won't eliminate the fact that someone needs help, but it will temporarily reduce how much damage they can do. Like building missile turrets in your base against drops. Gun control is actually StarCraft risk management.
After all this time, I still haven't figured out the correlation between sexual orientation and beating an unprepared opponent. Are homosexuals the next koreans? Many players seem to think it's an unfair advantage. - pandaburn
Leporello
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2845 Posts
January 21 2013 04:17 GMT
#7418
On January 21 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!

Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.

Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?

I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.


I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible.

If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible.

I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda.

Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's.

As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding.

In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman.

It's not a strawman.

It illustrates a valid point. "Arms" is a very generic term, which, given the extremely life-threatening capabilities of modern technology, has already been compromised on in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, most of us can't own lots of various arms that the military uses, such as artillery. Or nukes.

What happens when "arms" takes a new turn as it did when semi-automatic guns were invented? Most of the handguns today would devastate the common weapons of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Are we to take this generic "objects don't kill people" approach into the indefinite future? There are guns today that can bring down airplanes. These are generally exceptional, hard to get, and hopefully tracked by government agencies. But perhaps the handguns (if they're "guns" at all) of future generations will be just as capable of such devastation. Should everyone have one? Should they be common household items? Will that save lives?

Should the common sense of the time not override the ideology of the 17th century slave-owners? Guns in 1776, in Europe and America, were only just beginning to be commonplace. It was only just recently that armies began using them. They could have no idea where the technology would go. Guns were the best - and the only - weapon. Artillery, high-explosives, and the such did not occur to them.

In 1776, America was actually forbidding itself a standing army. All they had was militia. And they had slaves to control - not a slight problem in the least. So guns were it. They were the only weapon that mattered, and they were the defense of our nation.

I don't mean to lecture, but it's pretty obvious that the mentality of that early America is almost completely irrelevant. We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege. We've compromised on the concept that everyone can own whatever weapon they want. They can't. You can't own any weapon you might wish for, such as nukes. There are limits, and perhaps we should create some more, as our technology continues to develop.
Big water
JingleHell
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States11308 Posts
January 21 2013 04:20 GMT
#7419
On January 21 2013 09:36 Falling wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 21 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:
On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.

I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it.


I don't know about that, (it wouldn't surprise me, the NRA is insane), but why would the CDC be looking into guns, exactly?

I'd be a little nervous about why the Center for Disease Control was using tax dollars to look into something not (as far as I can tell) related to their domain, and where the ideas came from.

I wouldn't really want the NRA to do a study on HIV either.

Well I don't really know what jurisdiction your various organizations have. I think it was under the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that the research was blocked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html/?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Show nested quote +
The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Amongst other things. I mean I guess it could be the wrong organization doing the research. But it doesn't seem like any related organization has filled in the gap. It just got shut down in one area. And then I think it got shut down again with the National Institutes for Health. But it seems there is a great concern for shutting down government research then for relocating to the proper organization- if there is one. Dunno. I'll admit this isn't a topic I am very strong on- hence my asking whether this is true vs bias reproting.


Ok, well that sounds slightly less retarded. Even so, I'd need to know a LOT more about the situation to know whether it was just to prevent bias or what.

I don't trust a federally funded source to study anything highly politicized. In the Army, I spent some time at division HQ, and I know just how far reaching the politics can get. At the policy and decision making levels of anything federally funded, there's going to be bias if people want to keep their jobs.

It's actually kind of disgusting. Obviously, I wouldn't trust the NRA to study gun violence either. Ideally, we'd get a neutral third party to do it, but even then we'd probably see political bias from other countries having some effect.

As I've said lots of times, there's room for compromise in gun control, the problem is that compromise is pretty much always pushed to the wayside, and we end up with idiotic measures, or ineffective measures. As I've said, if we ban "assault weapons", well, I'd love to know how not having a bayonet mounted makes it harder to shoot people. In basic, we did bayonet training with "rubber duckies", hard, rubberized training rifles that cost a lot less to replace. Basically, we had a blunt, awkward spear. Couldn't shoot people with the bayonet, but we could mount one!
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
January 21 2013 04:30 GMT
#7420
On January 21 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege.


Now THIS is the founder-mythos nostalgia I'd like to revive. Then we could dispense with this Keynesianism qui s'ignore which is the military-industrial complex (looking at you, Romney)
shikata ga nai
Prev 1 369 370 371 372 373 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 51m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ProTech71
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 338
Snow 264
ToSsGirL 118
Leta 87
Backho 62
Sacsri 53
Dota 2
ODPixel295
XcaliburYe32
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1017
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox453
Other Games
summit1g5424
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1220
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH422
• practicex 46
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota214
League of Legends
• Stunt425
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
3h 51m
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 3h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

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

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

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