| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:02 striderxxx wrote: When you can buy a gun at your local Wal-Mart in the US, there is something wrong there....just saying From a process perspective, it is no different than buying from a real gun store. | ||
|
mijagi182
Poland797 Posts
| ||
|
-VapidSlug-
United States108 Posts
On February 01 2013 11:01 FallDownMarigold wrote: No if you're going to use that silly logic, our biggest threat is heart disease. Cut the crap. ....Which is most often caused by obesity. Which, in an estimated 99.3% of cases, is caused by voluntary energy intake exceeding total energy expenditure. You should connect the dots. Honestly, everyone, there is little point in arguing--people will have their opinions, informed or otherwise, and stick to them. Regardless, if all means of self defense are banned you can only choose to be a helpless victim or a criminal. There is no compromise. Criminals WILL ALWAYS have guns. I know someone who makes rifles in a lathe in his garage. That is already VERY illegal yet it happens. If there is a market for something, it will exist. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On February 01 2013 22:42 mijagi182 wrote: Why dont the government just give an atomic bomb to everyone? It makes more sense than allowing guns, since warfare changed from when the 2nd amendment was introduced. And if someone gets killed, one can always say "hey, atomic bombs dont kill people, people do". Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos. Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues. Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning. That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:12 SamsungStar wrote: Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos. Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues. Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning. That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda. Atomic bombs aren't military standard anymore--so which means they're as much a non-combat weapon as most guns. Atomic bombs have never been used by crazy extremists to target school kids. The year after atomic bombs were introduced to Hiroshima and Nagasaki crime was very much down. No murder in the US has been commited with atom bombs. They're as safe as assault rifles if we are to use gun nut logic. | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: Atomic bombs aren't military standard anymore--so which means they're as much a non-combat weapon as most guns. Atomic bombs have never been used by crazy extremists to target school kids. The year after atomic bombs were introduced to Hiroshima and Nagasaki crime was very much down. No murder in the US has been commited with atom bombs. They're as safe as assault rifles if we are to use gun nut logic. Who said guns are non-combat? Atomic bombs have been used by crazy extremists to target school kids: USA bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or did you think those cities didn't have schools? Or that the USA wasn't extreme in their decision? Crime was not down per capita after the atomic bombs. Erroneous point. Murders have been committed BECAUSE of atomic bombs. And your punchline is even worse. Because nuclear weapons are SAFER than assault rifles generally speaking. A 9 yr old boy can't walk up to an atomic bomb and get himself killed. He can with an assault rifle. | ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:58 SamsungStar wrote: Who said guns are non-combat? Atomic bombs have been used by crazy extremists to target school kids: USA bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or did you think those cities didn't have schools? Or that the USA wasn't extreme in their decision? Crime was not down per capita after the atomic bombs. Erroneous point. Murders have been committed BECAUSE of atomic bombs. And your punchline is even worse. Because nuclear weapons are SAFER than assault rifles generally speaking. A 9 yr old boy can't walk up to an atomic bomb and get himself killed. He can with an assault rifle. While extreme examples can be a good way to illustrate a point, I don't understand this fixation with atomic bombs. We already know that some weapons are too dangerous to allow any civilian to have, some are too useful to ban, and some fall into a grey area. I'm not sure how to best measure 'safe', but I don't think a single criteria of what will happen if a 9 year old walks up to an item sitting on a street corner is a good way. Why bring up controversial points regarding the justification for using atomic bombs during WW2 in this thread? That seems like a big mistake to me. | ||
|
-VapidSlug-
United States108 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: They're as safe as assault rifles if we are to use gun nut logic. The precise moment you resort to the lowest tier of the hierarchy of argument (name-calling) is the precise moment you lose. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:25 -VapidSlug- wrote: The precise moment you resort to the lowest tier of the hierarchy of argument (name-calling) is the precise moment you lose. Fine, call "Pro-Gun" logic, or "Freedom for American Militias Group" or whatever. The arguments made more less gun control is silly and stupid because when the same argument is used on other items it creates illogical and stupid scenarios that no one in their right minds would support. Almost everything pro gun folks use to defend assault rifles is the same thing you could use for napalm, for low tech nukes, for fucking fertilizer bombs. The reason its can be used for those obviously crazy items is specifically because its an argument that hinges on cherry picked facts to attempt to paint a nicer picture of something very grizzly. Do I personally want there to be a gun ban on the US? No. Why? For the same reason I don't believe anything should be banned in the US. Do I think it should be regulated? Yes--for the same reason that stupid shit that kills people should be regulated. Do you know what a stop light is? It's a government regulation for walking down the street to reduce deaths. Regulations are made for *walking down the fucking street* but the moment regulations are made for owning assault rifles freedoms suddenly are being infringed? Why don't I see "anti-cross-walk rallies" being shoved into the governments throats as people get upset about how the government is telling them how to walk around their own fucking neighborhoods? You know why? Because people think it's reasonable that the government takes charge and regulates things we do in order to protect citizens from harm. Why can't pro gun folks see that when government starts regulating weapons? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Fine, call "Pro-Gun" logic, or "Freedom for American Militias Group" or whatever. The arguments made more less gun control is silly and stupid because when the same argument is used on other items it creates illogical and stupid scenarios that no one in their right minds would support. Almost everything pro gun folks use to defend assault rifles is the same thing you could use for napalm, for low tech nukes, for fucking fertilizer bombs. The reason its can be used for those obviously crazy items is specifically because its an argument that hinges on cherry picked facts to attempt to paint a nicer picture of something very grizzly. Do I personally want there to be a gun ban on the US? No. Why? For the same reason I don't believe anything should be banned in the US. Do I think it should be regulated? Yes--for the same reason that stupid shit that kills people should be regulated. Do you know what a stop light is? It's a government regulation for walking down the street to reduce deaths. Regulations are made for *walking down the fucking street* but the moment regulations are made for owning assault rifles freedoms suddenly are being infringed? Why don't I see "anti-cross-walk rallies" being shoved into the governments throats as people get upset about how the government is telling them how to walk around their own fucking neighborhoods? You know why? Because people think it's reasonable that the government takes charge and regulates things we do in order to protect citizens from harm. Why can't pro gun folks see that when government starts regulating weapons? Some people are definitely overzealous when it comes to fighting all regulation. However, not everybody has gone off the deep end, either. In my state, recently the majority of long-guns have been permanently banned, pending court cases and the like. This is not simply a reasonable regulation, essentially when you consider how this legislation was rushed through in secret. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:07 -VapidSlug- wrote: ....Which is most often caused by obesity. Which, in an estimated 99.3% of cases, is caused by voluntary energy intake exceeding total energy expenditure. You should connect the dots. Honestly, everyone, there is little point in arguing--people will have their opinions, informed or otherwise, and stick to them. Regardless, if all means of self defense are banned you can only choose to be a helpless victim or a criminal. There is no compromise. Criminals WILL ALWAYS have guns. I know someone who makes rifles in a lathe in his garage. That is already VERY illegal yet it happens. If there is a market for something, it will exist. There are nonlethal self defense weapons and if your assailant doesn't have a gun they are very effective. This "criminals will always have guns" arguments is just not supported by any sort of good research. Most people don't make rifles in their garage, there is significant evidence pointing to an overall reduction in gun prevalence causing a reduction in gun use during the process of committing other crimes, and that more guns cause more homicides with little effect on most criminal behavior. Some people are more open to facts than others, I really didn't support gun control the way I do now even a few months ago but all the progun people seem to have is accusing others of strawmen, ad hominem and putting an unreasonable burden of proof on their opponents. Then they do some yelling about tyranny and city wide gun control bans. There is zero substance to the arguments, and the more facts I see the less sense America's gun laws make. Edit: Yup, there's you with the ad hominem accusations a few posts up. Don't do anything to refute the rest of his point, just say he loses cause he called you a name. (Side note: 'm not sure what sort of response his points deserve, tbh) | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Fine, call "Pro-Gun" logic, or "Freedom for American Militias Group" or whatever. The arguments made more less gun control is silly and stupid because when the same argument is used on other items it creates illogical and stupid scenarios that no one in their right minds would support. Almost everything pro gun folks use to defend assault rifles is the same thing you could use for napalm, for low tech nukes, for fucking fertilizer bombs. The reason its can be used for those obviously crazy items is specifically because its an argument that hinges on cherry picked facts to attempt to paint a nicer picture of something very grizzly. Do I personally want there to be a gun ban on the US? No. Why? For the same reason I don't believe anything should be banned in the US. Do I think it should be regulated? Yes--for the same reason that stupid shit that kills people should be regulated. Do you know what a stop light is? It's a government regulation for walking down the street to reduce deaths. Regulations are made for *walking down the fucking street* but the moment regulations are made for owning assault rifles freedoms suddenly are being infringed? Why don't I see "anti-cross-walk rallies" being shoved into the governments throats as people get upset about how the government is telling them how to walk around their own fucking neighborhoods? You know why? Because people think it's reasonable that the government takes charge and regulates things we do in order to protect citizens from harm. Why can't pro gun folks see that when government starts regulating weapons? Probably because no one gets ticketed for jay walking. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:41 micronesia wrote: Some people are definitely overzealous when it comes to fighting all regulation. However, not everybody has gone off the deep end, either. In my state, recently the majority of long-guns have been permanently banned, pending court cases and the like. This is not simply a reasonable regulation, essentially when you consider how this legislation was rushed through in secret. And the fact that long guns are used in such a ludicrously small amount of murders compared to anything else? Even combining rifles, shotguns, and "not specified firearms", handguns are still higher. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 I figure that can showcase the misdirection of the zeal, no matter what people believe about gun control. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
If you were actually interested in a debate you wouldn't fill your posts with strawmen or use blanket statements to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy "gun nut". It's no wonder no one bothers to take the time to respond to you in a well thought out response. As for bringing up atomic weapons, thats just the inability to compose a logical argument. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On February 01 2013 15:32 TheFrankOne wrote: More fun facts! + Show Spoiler + "we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf + Show Spoiler + "theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf + Show Spoiler + "This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Next sentence in the article: Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership. Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia Bumping this because not a single pro-gun replied to it. Surely these points demand some refuting, no? Strong points. How about instead of chasing down each other about who is arguing in poor form or who is using strawmen, someone responds to some of this? I'm particularly interested in responses to Scalia's quote. Provided unlimited rifles, what good would it even do vs. the US military? Absolutely nothing! Seems to be a pretty rock solid point against the need for assault rifles in the hands of the public. | ||
|
mijagi182
Poland797 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:12 SamsungStar wrote: Because atomic bombs aren't precise enough? DUH. Dude, you only need to kill one or two people. Not an entire city. You're just going way overboard with that idea. Plus, fissile material is really expensive and difficult to handle. I don't think most Americans could deal with that. On top of that, you'd need a proper delivery vehicle, which is also really expensive. Most people don't even own their own houses. I doubt they could afford individual missile silos. Also, nowadays people don't use atomic bombs. They use nuclear warheads. Atomic bombs are a relic of WW2. You have to keep up, especially if you want to debate CURRENT social issues. Your argument that atomic bombs don't kill people is false too, because radioactive fallout can kill a lot of people on accident. It's not like a gun where when you pull the trigger you have a general idea where the bullet is going to go. Ofc innocent bystanders can still be killed sometimes, but it's not as bad as radiation poisoning. That's why guns are good. Because they cover that middle area between bare hands and nuclear warheads, where you have a decent level of force projection at an economically viable price with a reliable degree of precision. So no, the gov't should not "just give an atomic bomb to everyone." And shame on you for trying to push that agenda. 1. I don't agree dude. Deep inside, i think you need to kill no one. 2. Lol, think of a-bomb reference as a mental shortcut for nucelar weapon (as it was for me). Note that eng is not my native language. 3. No, guns ARE NOT safer for bystanders than a-bomb...really. 4. I feel those who push pro guns agenda should feel ashamed. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Most "crazy gun nuts" I know would like to be able to own the same rifle and side arm that is issued to your basic infantryman. Which isn't crazy at all. Which would be you AR15 and Baretta 9mm. So that eliminates stuff like belt-fed machine guns...grenade launchers...and Bionuclearanthrax railguns. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: Bumping this because not a single pro-gun replied to it. Surely these points demand some refuting, no? Strong points. How about instead of chasing down each other about who is arguing in poor form or who is using strawmen, someone responds to some of this? I'm particularly interested in responses to Scalia's quote. Provided unlimited rifles, what good would it even do vs. the US military? Absolutely nothing! Seems to be a pretty rock solid point against the need for assault rifles in the hands of the public. My response is the set of statistics I just linked. Statistically, if you want to reduce gun homicides, keep rifles and ban other firearms. The fact that it's just as misguided as anything else targeting the wrong guns is exactly why I ignore it. Just like it pointed out, the guns are getting used in the existing crimes. It's a lot easier to involve a gun in a crime if you can conceal it, you draw less attention to yourself. If you want to conceal a gun, you want a handgun. Ergo, banning "evil assault rifles etc etc rhetoric blah blah blah", statistically, would have the least effect on murder rates overall. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:52 FallDownMarigold wrote: Bumping this because not a single pro-gun replied to it. Surely these points demand some refuting, no? Strong points. How about instead of chasing down each other about who is arguing in poor form or who is using strawmen, someone responds to some of this? I'm particularly interested in responses to Scalia's quote. Provided unlimited rifles, what good would it even do vs. the US military? Absolutely nothing! Seems to be a pretty rock solid point against the need for assault rifles in ethe hands of the public. I can't type out a very long post atm, stuck on my phone. I was wondering If you're aware that the second amendment has been interpreted by Scotus to cover the right to bear arms unconnected with a militia. IMO it makes using the tyranny argument pretty much moot for both sides in our discussion. I double posted | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PiG Daily
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
Serral vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
GSL
Yamato Cup
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
