|
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 February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual?
If you completely banned guns, criminals wouldn't have guns in 20 years. Guns don't have an incredibly long street life, and the reason it's so easy for criminals to get guns is because gun laws are so lax in the first place. If they were very strict, it would be much, much harder for a respectable black market for guns to exist.
The reason politicians don't talk about serious gun control (control that will reduce the vast majority of gun deaths; by handguns) is because the NRA is a sick and twisted right-wing nut-job private interest that holds entirely too much power in this incredibly fucked up political system that we have. Any talk of serious gun control would immediately get a politician from all but the most liberal, urban states booted from office.
|
On February 01 2013 10:25 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:23 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 10:11 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual? When there are no guns, not even criminals get them. In Chile even in the roughest neighborhood there's few guns. A few gangs have them, and they mostly use them to intimidate, since most of them have no experience with guns whatsoever, in worst cases they engage in firefights with cops, resulting in a few deaths a year. Criminals would rather invest their money in their drug business in the clubs and stuff rather than guns, they don't need them that badly. Trust me VERY few people have guns, even considering illegal access can't be too difficult. It would be pretty tough at the beginning, but I'm sure in around 20 years or so, the US would have successfully adapted to life without guns. They really serve no purpose. 1.5 - 2 million civilian guns is a shit ton for a country that sees no purpose for them, and an estimated 750,000 - 1.3 million is a hell of a lot of guns to be held illegally if criminals don't see the benefit of them. If you looked at the same numbers I did, how can you reach that conclusion? Hmm I don't know the exact figures, what I do know is that guns don't really matter here, people barely even use them for anything. More people get killed by knives than by gunshot. And trust me, I live here. The only times I hear about guns are 2 instances: -Firefights between cops and gangs resulting in a bystander's death (1-3 each year, usually 1 dead) -Getting an accidentally shot kid in the ER, which is a fucking tragedy Oh I could also add that lately, with a huge mess with indigenous ethnicities in the country and the landowners there's been a few more incidents involving guns. Actually, this is so irrelevant I just found out carrying guns is allowed in my country ROFL, the fact that I have never seen a gun not held by a police or a military person in my entire life speaks as to how little guns matter here. It's a cultural thing, we don't give a fuck about guns. I don't know anyone who has one for protection, for example.
Have you actually asked people though? No one would know I have a gun if they didn't ask me.
If you don't know what to look for, concealed handguns can be almost impossible to spot. Even if you do know what to look for, it isn't always easy.
On February 01 2013 10:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual? If you completely banned guns, criminals wouldn't have guns in 20 years. Guns don't have an incredibly long street life, and the reason it's so easy for criminals to get guns is because gun laws are so lax in the first place. If they were very strict, it would be much, much harder for a respectable black market for guns to exist.
Have you seen how insane the cartels in Mexico are right now? And have you seen how porous the borders are? Guns could flow back and forth completely unabated. And they'd be more dangerous guns, because there's no incentive to not use a bigger, better weapon then. Why use a pistol when you can use a submachine gun like a MAC-10? It's just as small, just as concealable, and fully-automatic.
|
On February 01 2013 05:55 karelen wrote:
Dear american pro-gun supporters open your eyes and look at whats happening in your society. You really think this is what your founding fathers intended? School shootings every week? Kids shooting siblings acceidentally? Mentally unstable individuals going on random killing sprees? Fathers shooting imagined burglars that later turn out to be family members?
You are quite right in the mantra you keep on repeating, guns dont kill, people do. But clearly people arent ready to have an unlimited supply of firearms.
Also for the record, keeping the population armed to protect against "tyranny" is seriously the weakest argument you could put forth, Its just laughable in this day and age.
I'd rather see you statists "laugh" at us for being too "paranoid" of "tyranny" than us laughing and saying I told you so.
|
On February 01 2013 10:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual? If you completely banned guns, criminals wouldn't have guns in 20 years. Guns don't have an incredibly long street life, and the reason it's so easy for criminals to get guns is because gun laws are so lax in the first place. If they were very strict, it would be much, much harder for a respectable black market for guns to exist.
Are you high? Guns last quite a while, assuming people take reasonable care of them. Sure, since they're readily available, people might use something and throw it, but if the stakes were that much higher to even have one, they'd keep it, just to be sure.
If you aren't sure how long guns can last with some basic maintenance... well, there's functional guns from both World Wars, and even older than that.
|
On February 01 2013 10:40 vividred wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 05:55 karelen wrote:
Dear american pro-gun supporters open your eyes and look at whats happening in your society. You really think this is what your founding fathers intended? School shootings every week? Kids shooting siblings acceidentally? Mentally unstable individuals going on random killing sprees? Fathers shooting imagined burglars that later turn out to be family members?
You are quite right in the mantra you keep on repeating, guns dont kill, people do. But clearly people arent ready to have an unlimited supply of firearms.
Also for the record, keeping the population armed to protect against "tyranny" is seriously the weakest argument you could put forth, Its just laughable in this day and age. I'd rather see you statists "laugh" at us for being too "paranoid" of "tyranny" than us laughing and saying I told you so.
So allow for countless others to die, all for protection from some hypothetical scenario that is incredibly unlikely to happen, even if there aren't any guns in our society.
Are you high? Guns last quite a while, assuming people take reasonable care of them. Sure, since they're readily available, people might use something and throw it, but if the stakes were that much higher to even have one, they'd keep it, just to be sure.
If you aren't sure how long guns can last with some basic maintenance... well, there's functional guns from both World Wars, and even older than that.
First, it's not like every criminal is an expert at gun maintenance and restoration. Large amounts of guns would simple break because most of the people that use them have no clue how to actually use them, let alone take care of them.
Second, guns don't just disappear off the street because of breaking. If laws were strict, police would confiscate them when they arrested someone for committing a crime with a firearm.
|
On February 01 2013 10:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:25 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 10:23 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 10:11 mordk wrote:On February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual? When there are no guns, not even criminals get them. In Chile even in the roughest neighborhood there's few guns. A few gangs have them, and they mostly use them to intimidate, since most of them have no experience with guns whatsoever, in worst cases they engage in firefights with cops, resulting in a few deaths a year. Criminals would rather invest their money in their drug business in the clubs and stuff rather than guns, they don't need them that badly. Trust me VERY few people have guns, even considering illegal access can't be too difficult. It would be pretty tough at the beginning, but I'm sure in around 20 years or so, the US would have successfully adapted to life without guns. They really serve no purpose. 1.5 - 2 million civilian guns is a shit ton for a country that sees no purpose for them, and an estimated 750,000 - 1.3 million is a hell of a lot of guns to be held illegally if criminals don't see the benefit of them. If you looked at the same numbers I did, how can you reach that conclusion? Hmm I don't know the exact figures, what I do know is that guns don't really matter here, people barely even use them for anything. More people get killed by knives than by gunshot. And trust me, I live here. The only times I hear about guns are 2 instances: -Firefights between cops and gangs resulting in a bystander's death (1-3 each year, usually 1 dead) -Getting an accidentally shot kid in the ER, which is a fucking tragedy Oh I could also add that lately, with a huge mess with indigenous ethnicities in the country and the landowners there's been a few more incidents involving guns. Actually, this is so irrelevant I just found out carrying guns is allowed in my country ROFL, the fact that I have never seen a gun not held by a police or a military person in my entire life speaks as to how little guns matter here. It's a cultural thing, we don't give a fuck about guns. I don't know anyone who has one for protection, for example. Have you actually asked people though? No one would know I have a gun if they didn't ask me. If you don't know what to look for, concealed handguns can be almost impossible to spot. Even if you do know what to look for, it isn't always easy.
Hmm.. not really, I don't know I don't think anyone I know has a gun in their house. I couldn't say for certain though. But I don't know, Owning a gun is a subject that's never even crossed my mind, it's like they don't exist outside of games and TV and news, and whenever there's guns involved, bad stuff happens so I guess it's better to just stay away. Seems logical imo.
The closest thing I could say is that whenever we've discussed things like, "an armed robber enters your home", there's been talk of everything, from kicks in the balls, just surrendering and get freely robbed, to throwing a knife, but I've never heard anyone I know say they'd shoot the man, it's just not there.
|
On February 01 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:40 vividred wrote:On February 01 2013 05:55 karelen wrote:
Dear american pro-gun supporters open your eyes and look at whats happening in your society. You really think this is what your founding fathers intended? School shootings every week? Kids shooting siblings acceidentally? Mentally unstable individuals going on random killing sprees? Fathers shooting imagined burglars that later turn out to be family members?
You are quite right in the mantra you keep on repeating, guns dont kill, people do. But clearly people arent ready to have an unlimited supply of firearms.
Also for the record, keeping the population armed to protect against "tyranny" is seriously the weakest argument you could put forth, Its just laughable in this day and age. I'd rather see you statists "laugh" at us for being too "paranoid" of "tyranny" than us laughing and saying I told you so. So allow for countless others to die, all for protection from some hypothetical scenario that is incredibly unlikely to happen, even if there aren't any guns in our society. Show nested quote +Are you high? Guns last quite a while, assuming people take reasonable care of them. Sure, since they're readily available, people might use something and throw it, but if the stakes were that much higher to even have one, they'd keep it, just to be sure.
If you aren't sure how long guns can last with some basic maintenance... well, there's functional guns from both World Wars, and even older than that. First, it's not like every criminal is an expert at gun maintenance and restoration. Large amounts of guns would simple break because most of the people that use them have no clue how to actually use them, let alone take care of them. Second, guns don't just disappear off the street because of breaking. If laws were strict, police would confiscate them when they arrested someone for committing a crime with a firearm.
They already do confiscate them if someone commits a crime with them.
And it's basic maintenance, assuming you don't beat the hell out of them. When's the last time you handled a gun? Cleaned one?
They're made of incredibly durable materials, and unless you abuse them (this isn't the movies) all you have to do is clean them on occasion. A little oil works wonders at keeping the moving parts moving. Hell, even in the Army, I barely had any major, long term malfunctions, with guns that had been under that kind of use for years. Thousands of rounds, myself, with less than ideal conditions, and I never had a catastrophic failure.
Explain again how they'd break so fast if they were mostly used for intimidation and an occasional shot or two?
|
On February 01 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:40 vividred wrote:On February 01 2013 05:55 karelen wrote:
Dear american pro-gun supporters open your eyes and look at whats happening in your society. You really think this is what your founding fathers intended? School shootings every week? Kids shooting siblings acceidentally? Mentally unstable individuals going on random killing sprees? Fathers shooting imagined burglars that later turn out to be family members?
You are quite right in the mantra you keep on repeating, guns dont kill, people do. But clearly people arent ready to have an unlimited supply of firearms.
Also for the record, keeping the population armed to protect against "tyranny" is seriously the weakest argument you could put forth, Its just laughable in this day and age. I'd rather see you statists "laugh" at us for being too "paranoid" of "tyranny" than us laughing and saying I told you so. So allow for countless others to die, all for protection from some hypothetical scenario that is incredibly unlikely to happen, even if there aren't any guns in our society.
Yeah as if guns are the only thing that can kill countless numbers of people.
|
On February 01 2013 06:04 -VapidSlug- wrote:To answer the OP: Yes. And to all kinds (excusing some destructive devices) whether they are fully automatic, .22cal, or 20mm. Whether they carry 5 rounds or 500. To comment on "universal background checks," are you going to create a hotline for thieves to call when they steal a firearm? This is the only way a potential mass murderer can make sure he/she is stealing the firearm legally. Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 05:55 karelen wrote:
Dear american pro-gun supporters open your eyes and look at whats happening in your society. You really think this is what your founding fathers intended? School shootings every week? Kids shooting siblings acceidentally? Mentally unstable individuals going on random killing sprees? Fathers shooting imagined burglars that later turn out to be family members?
You are quite right in the mantra you keep on repeating, guns dont kill, people do. But clearly people arent ready to have an unlimited supply of firearms.
Also for the record, keeping the population armed to protect against "tyranny" is seriously the weakest argument you could put forth, Its just laughable in this day and age. Recently, 280,000 people in America died because of obesity. Dare I say our biggest threat is FORKS??
No if you're going to use that silly logic, our biggest threat is heart disease. Cut the crap.
|
On February 01 2013 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
So, out of curiosity, what's up with all those data points that don't fit a pretty linear progression?
First off, the term you want is linear regression -- linear progression is something related to music. That's beside the point entirely though, and I'm only telling you this so that in the future when the need for that term comes up, you will know the right one. Consider that a friendly pointer, not a "personal ad hom". Moving on:
The only point on that graph that strays from the linear fit is Mexico. Think about it. The interpretation of that data is that in Mexico far less people own guns, but far more people are killed by them due to the narco violence currently ongoing there.... That violence in terms of deaths by the number is on par with the level of the violence in the Iraq War. Obviously the result is that Mexico sits low on guns owned axis, high on gun deaths.
|
On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon !
Because the debate goes like this:
-Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends.
--But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad.
-Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible?
--Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.?
-......
--Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc.
Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole 
|
On February 01 2013 11:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
So, out of curiosity, what's up with all those data points that don't fit a pretty linear progression? First off, the term you want is linear regression -- linear progression is something related to music. That's beside the point entirely though, and I'm only telling you this so that in the future when the need for that term comes up, you will know the right one. Consider that a friendly pointer, not a "personal ad hom". Moving on: The only point on that graph that strays from the linear fit is Mexico. Think about it. In Mexico far less people own guns, but far more people are killed by them due to the narco violence currently ongoing there.... That violence in terms of deaths by the number is on par with the level of the violence in the Iraq War. Obviously the result is that Mexico sits low on guns owned axis, high on gun deaths.
Oh, congratulations, your combination of scathing wit and trivia has truly left me gasping for breath and clutching my chest as my arguments turn to ash like the very blood in my veins, truly, my soul is scarred, I shall never be the same, left to my own devices, I shall fade...
Seriously, if you're going to lecture me on semantics related to statistics, don't tell me you're allowed to discount one data point due to a factor, and don't consider the possibility that the same factor could play in a separate data point.
Do you honestly think gangs and drugs have nothing to do with violence in the USA?
We've argued with Mexico over who's to blame for that sort of nonsense.
|
On February 01 2013 11:14 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 11:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 07:03 JingleHell wrote:
So, out of curiosity, what's up with all those data points that don't fit a pretty linear progression? First off, the term you want is linear regression -- linear progression is something related to music. That's beside the point entirely though, and I'm only telling you this so that in the future when the need for that term comes up, you will know the right one. Consider that a friendly pointer, not a "personal ad hom". Moving on: The only point on that graph that strays from the linear fit is Mexico. Think about it. In Mexico far less people own guns, but far more people are killed by them due to the narco violence currently ongoing there.... That violence in terms of deaths by the number is on par with the level of the violence in the Iraq War. Obviously the result is that Mexico sits low on guns owned axis, high on gun deaths. Oh, congratulations, your combination of scathing wit and trivia has truly left me gasping for breath and clutching my chest as my arguments turn to ash like the very blood in my veins, truly, my soul is scarred, I shall never be the same, left to my own devices, I shall fade... Seriously, if you're going to lecture me on semantics related to statistics, don't tell me you're allowed to discount one data point due to a factor, and don't consider the possibility that the same factor could play in a separate data point. Do you honestly think gangs and drugs have nothing to do with violence in the USA? We've argued with Mexico over who's to blame for that sort of nonsense.
I went out of my way to tell you that I was merely letting you know the proper term for your own sake. Seriously. I then moved to explain why that "outlier" data point is easily explained.
I have no idea why you are so quick to scream bloody murder 'quit ad homming me bro'. Sheesh, it's incredible.
|
On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole
I'm still actually waiting for you to post anything with actual substance instead of you just mocking people and blowing steam. Seriously, I've covered at least a dozen other reasons why gun control is bad previously in this thread, sorry that you missed it but if you aren't going to contribute to the argument then stop posting. You're just talking like a complete dick and adding VERY little to the actual argument in each of your posts.
|
On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole
SMALL portion of viewpoints? Someone obviously hasn't been to the South. Or the Midwest. Down here we all got guns. ALL of us. We love them. Girls, especially. I know of very few girls down here who wouldn't consider it a good time to spend the day at the gun range.
|
On February 01 2013 11:32 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole I'm still actually waiting for you to post anything with actual substance instead of you just mocking people and blowing steam. Seriously, I've covered at least a dozen other reasons why gun control is bad previously in this thread, sorry that you missed it but if you aren't going to contribute to the argument then stop posting. You're just talking like a complete dick and adding VERY little to the actual argument in each of your posts.
I happened upon this thread because I saw that it was still appearing in the sidebar. Way early on, you can actually find posts here that I made a while ago talking about my own fondness for guns, and my own experiences shooting them. I even advocated for certain situations in which having a gun is helpful. But all that being said, I think in the end gun control is important, and something we should strive to gradually implement, despite my own interests in guns. So, what's your argument? Telling me to wade through ~400 pages isn't helpful because that's like telling someone to go read a novel in order to reply. If you have a sound argument that you know in and out, it won't be too much of a trouble to provide a ~250 word abstract. That's much more useful than sifting through thousands of posts, finding yours, then making sense of them as a whole out of the many sub-discussions from which they arose.
|
On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole
Yes and that's what the founding fathers fought and died for to remind us and keeping it from happening.
Oh and last time I checked, the third reich, the soviet union and MAO's great leap and more tyrannical uprisings happened less than a hundred years ago.
|
On February 01 2013 10:41 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 10:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 01 2013 07:44 StarStrider wrote:On February 01 2013 07:33 Salteador Neo wrote:
If you ban all guns today, in 15-20 years the only people who would still want to keep their weapons are old farts and sons of rednecks who were teached to love their guns over people. That is progress.
In other countries maybe I would say 30 years, but USA has a story of learning and adapting fast. It's a "new" country after all, and always at the vanguard of change. Criminals who desire money and power wouldn't want to keep their guns to use against a population of the gun free? Or do you think that in 20 years people either won't commit crimes anymore or criminals with guns would have all been either caught or killed? This thread harps alot on psychos who kill innocents to watch them bleed. As if that's even a significant portion of the problem. The drug industry, their low level distribution gangs (that claim territory), people who commit violence or threat of violence for easy profit, or people in dire poverty who are desparate enough to commit crimes as a last resort....THESE are the gun problems in the United States. Not the occasional psycho who slaughters kids or the man who puts a bullet in his neighbors' head because he got heated. But no one wants to talk about that. Everyone is harping on people who premeditate the most amount of indiscriminate death possible in the quickest time possible, and think that taking 20 rounds out of his clip is going to somehow dent the other 10,000+ gun deaths that happen across our country and in our inner cities, including a far higher innocent body count. THOSE things aren't going to be addressed by limiting law abiding citizens in purchasing this or that gun or mag, so no one is talking about them. Doesn't that seem unusual? If you completely banned guns, criminals wouldn't have guns in 20 years. Guns don't have an incredibly long street life, and the reason it's so easy for criminals to get guns is because gun laws are so lax in the first place. If they were very strict, it would be much, much harder for a respectable black market for guns to exist. Are you high? Guns last quite a while, assuming people take reasonable care of them. Sure, since they're readily available, people might use something and throw it, but if the stakes were that much higher to even have one, they'd keep it, just to be sure. If you aren't sure how long guns can last with some basic maintenance... well, there's functional guns from both World Wars, and even older than that.
The 20 is obviously referring to the seizure of them by law enforcement. The supply of guns (for criminals) would drain a lot faster if any time the police seized a weapon there wasn't a new weapon to replace it. Many guns made in the 16th and 17th centuries can still fire, but the person you quoted isn't referring to how long the guns will physically laugh. If a criminal doesn't own a gun because the gun they want was taken from them and there is no replacement made to be sold to that criminal.
I am not even saying he is right, but don't argue against something he didn't actually say.
|
On February 01 2013 11:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 11:32 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole I'm still actually waiting for you to post anything with actual substance instead of you just mocking people and blowing steam. Seriously, I've covered at least a dozen other reasons why gun control is bad previously in this thread, sorry that you missed it but if you aren't going to contribute to the argument then stop posting. You're just talking like a complete dick and adding VERY little to the actual argument in each of your posts. I happened upon this thread because I saw that it was still appearing in the sidebar. So, what's your argument? Telling me to wade through ~400 pages isn't helpful because that's like telling someone to go read a novel in order to reply. If you have a sound argument that you know in and out, it won't be too much of a trouble to provide a ~250 word abstract. That's much more useful than sifting through thousands of posts, finding yours, then making sense of them as a whole out of the many sub-discussions from which they arose.
My argument: You (again) decided to ad hominem and strawman by suggesting the debate is 396 pages long because of our 2 page argument with an innaccurate representation of the side that does not support control. Not to mention you left out all your little childish bullshit. Then you basically wrote us off as people who are paranoid about tyranny and not worth taking seriously....and you expect to be taken seriously.
|
On February 01 2013 11:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 11:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 11:32 kmillz wrote:On February 01 2013 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 01 2013 10:17 Laeon wrote:
How can you debate 396 pages on that. The answer is : NO, people should not to be allowed to own weapon ! Because the debate goes like this: -Let's implement a gradually-increasing form of gun control so that we can eventually, someday, catch up to our European friends. --But, dictators will takeover. You see, Waco, Kent State, etc. Therefore, gun control is bad. -Hmm, that seems like quite a leap. So because of those instances, some vastly larger form of dictatorship occurring in the US is plausible? --Yes, did I mention Waco, Kent State, etc.? -...... --Cut it out with the ad homs. I served in the military. You're just saying things with no evidence. I have evidence: Waco, Kent State, etc. Never ends with these sorts of participants. Sincerely hope fellow TLers from around the world remember that those from the US expressing some of the more extreme viewpoints in favor of guns--especially the ones arguing that largescale US dictatorship is something we should be concerned about in our modern world if we lose our open access to guns--represent only a small portion of viewpoints in the US. They just so happen to populate this thread very vocally. So please, do not think less of people from the US as a whole I'm still actually waiting for you to post anything with actual substance instead of you just mocking people and blowing steam. Seriously, I've covered at least a dozen other reasons why gun control is bad previously in this thread, sorry that you missed it but if you aren't going to contribute to the argument then stop posting. You're just talking like a complete dick and adding VERY little to the actual argument in each of your posts. I happened upon this thread because I saw that it was still appearing in the sidebar. So, what's your argument? Telling me to wade through ~400 pages isn't helpful because that's like telling someone to go read a novel in order to reply. If you have a sound argument that you know in and out, it won't be too much of a trouble to provide a ~250 word abstract. That's much more useful than sifting through thousands of posts, finding yours, then making sense of them as a whole out of the many sub-discussions from which they arose. My argument: You (again) decided to ad hominem and strawman by suggesting the debate is 396 pages long because of our 2 page argument with an innaccurate representation of the side that does not support control. Not to mention you left out all your little childish bullshit. Then you basically wrote us off as people who are paranoid about tyranny and not worth taking seriously....and you expect to be taken seriously.
...
What's your argument re: gun control, summarized in ~250 words, so that I can respond. Seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
