EPTYou think I didn't make my decision on what shotgun to buy based on which one had an nra sticker on it?
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13887 Posts
You think I didn't make my decision on what shotgun to buy based on which one had an nra sticker on it? | ||
|
Firestorm
Canada341 Posts
On March 08 2013 11:29 Rhino85 wrote: People also defend themselves a hell of a lot more efficiently with the help of guns as well. BANG you're dead! The real point is how does a gun save you when the attacker has the element of surprise of his side and fires before you? The element of surprise is the real factor that no one ever thinks about. US President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by the best qualified armed security force in the world (the Secret Service), and a guy still almost killed him anyway because he had the element of surprise. Guns do not make you any safer than you were without a gun. | ||
|
Don.681
Philippines189 Posts
I predict that somewhere down the line, someone will invent the next big thing in weapon tech and all this debate about gun ownership will just be moot. Phasers man, that's the future. iPhones with phasers. | ||
micronesia
United States24667 Posts
On March 12 2013 09:57 Firestorm wrote: There is definitely truth to this.BANG you're dead! The real point is how does a gun save you when the attacker has the element of surprise of his side and fires before you? The element of surprise is the real factor that no one ever thinks about. US President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by the best qualified armed security force in the world (the Secret Service), and a guy still almost killed him anyway because he had the element of surprise. Guns do not make you any safer than you were without a gun. This does not logically follow from everything you said prior.How does eating vitamins improve your life expectancy when they give you zero defense from car accidents? Vitamins do not improve your life expectancy. | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On March 12 2013 09:57 Firestorm wrote: BANG you're dead! The real point is how does a gun save you when the attacker has the element of surprise of his side and fires before you? The element of surprise is the real factor that no one ever thinks about. US President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by the best qualified armed security force in the world (the Secret Service), and a guy still almost killed him anyway because he had the element of surprise. Guns do not make you any safer than you were without a gun. Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer... There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. Why should you be forced to fight with your hands against someone else when bad guys tend to do bad things in packs. Especially when people rarely do home invasions alone. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. " This reasoning is so bad. Of course you will find stories where having guns saved lives. And they will be on the news. And this guy will tell his wife "see how great guns are, this emotional one-time story really shows the worthiness of guns in domestic protection". But how many gun domestic accidents? It's a number's game. I will look up for stats but I'm pretty sure it won't look good for you. "Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. " Yeah and you can be a skinny 20 year old and kill 20+ people. But good job on you to trust a 10yo when to properly use a firearm. Anyway, I'm seriously waiting for one single valid argument for lax gun control policy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18824 Posts
On March 12 2013 10:36 tokicheese wrote: Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer... There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. Why should you be forced to fight with your hands against someone else when bad guys tend to do bad things in packs. Especially when people rarely do home invasions alone. By the time someone becomes a "meth head" they no longer weigh 300 pounds. And some random anecdotal video will not prove anything. Have a look at this transcript from NPR. I think people have no idea about that. Sixty percent of the gun fatalities are suicides, and 40 percent, about, are homicides. And most people don't think about that, but it's really important when you think about protection. And the third scientific fact here is that a study that was done to look at whether having a firearm in your home actually does protect you, or whether it puts you at greater risk, showed that families and homes in which there was a gun, not only were they not protected against homicide, but the risk of gun homicide to people in those households was 2.7 times greater than the households without a gun. And the risk of suicide in those households was 4.8 times greater in the households with firearms. So it looks like, in terms of this very important question of protection, that having a firearm in the home doesn't protect you, but it puts you at much greater risk. And I don't think people understand these facts. Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13887 Posts
On March 12 2013 22:31 Heweree wrote: "Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer... There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. " This reasoning is so bad. Of course you will find stories where having guns saved lives. And they will be on the news. And this guy will tell his wife "see how great guns are, this emotional one-time story really shows the worthiness of guns in domestic protection". But how many gun domestic accidents? It's a number's game. I will look up for stats but I'm pretty sure it won't look good for you. "Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. " Yeah and you can be a skinny 20 year old and kill 20+ people. But good job on you to trust a 10yo when to properly use a firearm. Anyway, I'm seriously waiting for one single valid argument for lax gun control policy. What would you consider a valid argument? I'm honestly curious because I don't think your using that word right. Its not up to you to dictate what is a "valid" argument and what isn't. But if you want someone to give you an argument that you validate as whats an actual argument you should really give people an idea of what that is. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On March 13 2013 01:18 Sermokala wrote: What would you consider a valid argument? I'm honestly curious because I don't think your using that word right. Its not up to you to dictate what is a "valid" argument and what isn't. But if you want someone to give you an argument that you validate as whats an actual argument you should really give people an idea of what that is. Yes, you are right. I misphrased that. What I am trying to say is that apart from a supposed "American exceptionalism" there is 0 reason why more gun control would cause more crime/deaths. It worked for every single country it was implemented. The reason it wouldn't work for the US is not because there are already too many guns (it was the case for almost every country) or because the US has a "special culture". It's because people wouldn't want to give up on their guns (even if it's only progressive gun control). Again it's their right as a country. But there is 0 rationale thinking behind that, it's just a mix of "freedom, American, great equalizer, constitution and whatnot". The only one I would consider validate myself is the freedom one, but for me and for most countries in the world the freedom of being able to own a gun is not worth the freedom to live in a close to gun free society. And the constitution is made by its citizens (we are on our 5th won in France  ). Maybe there are good reasons that I haven't seen yet. But the ones I see everytime (People kill people, criminals will still have guns while law abiding citizens won't, look at this story of a single mother protecting her children, great equalizer, look at Switzerland (where I lived btw and US politicians are talking bullshit, the gun system is nothing close to the US), look at this rural low density state with guns that has less crime than this urban state with stricter gun control policy, if we are invaded (lol) or to fight a dictatorship (doublelol). All these arguments can be dismissed easily, and the reality is still that in every single country where stricter gun control policy has been implemented it worked.Sorry for my poor english. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
| ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On March 12 2013 22:31 Heweree wrote: "Tell some of the kids who have had to shot intruders in their houses that the gun they had didn't make them safer... There's a video compilation of corner store/home owners defending themselves with firearms. All are very scary often it's an older person or younger kids. One that really sticks out is one of 2 girls who can't be older than 14 trying to hold a door shut while 2 huge dudes are trying to throw themselves against the door to bash it in. When they finally start getting the door open the one girl shoots one of the intruders and he drops dead and the other runs. I don't want to know what might have happened if they did get in and they little girls didn't have a gun but I'm glad there is one less scum bag out there. I'm trying to find the video now. " This reasoning is so bad. Of course you will find stories where having guns saved lives. And they will be on the news. And this guy will tell his wife "see how great guns are, this emotional one-time story really shows the worthiness of guns in domestic protection". But how many gun domestic accidents? It's a number's game. I will look up for stats but I'm pretty sure it won't look good for you. "Guns are the greatest equalizer. You can be 110 years old or 10 and you can still put a 300 pound meth head down if you absolutely have too. " Yeah and you can be a skinny 20 year old and kill 20+ people. But good job on you to trust a 10yo when to properly use a firearm. Anyway, I'm seriously waiting for one single valid argument for lax gun control policy. Some one said guns will never make you safer which is obviously untrue because people have saved their lives with firearms. Protecting your self and your family is a valid reason to own a firearm. There are hundreds of cases of that exact same thing happening across the US each year you can't just pretend that it's anecdotal when it happens all over the country.. Accidents are actually the lowest cause of death by firearm while suicide is by far the highest. The vast majority of gun accidents involve a fence and alcohol btw. If some one is willing to accept the higher risk of suicide for the benefit of being able to shoot recreationally like millions of Canadians and Americans why would you want take that away? If I'm more likely to kill myself I couldn't give less a of a fuck. I have some of my best memories with my dad, family and friends out in the bush shooting cans. Lots of children shoot targets/go hunting it's not difficult and it's safe if you teach them how to properly handle and use them. Most of the people I go hunting with learned how to shoot when they were around 10. Most people grew up around guns like their parents did before them. Just because you didn't know how to handle a firearm at 10 doesn't mean every one else is as ignorant as you. Mass shootings are incredibly rare and pointing towards them for gun control is just a pathetic scare tactic. Tons of people in Canada own guns and I have no worries about a mass shooting. It's not the guns that cause mass shootings its the people. "Normal" people don't just walk outside and start shooting kids in a school because they picked up a gun. Canada has a fuck ton of guns per capita and we haven't a had a mass shooting to my knowledge since the one in the University in Quebec 20 something years ago. Let's talk about the real issues surrounding gun control and what is causing the obscene amount of violence that doesn't just come from guns instead of appealing to peoples emotions... And what else is that kid supposed to do when some big bad guy comes into his house? Sometimes you can't run and once in a blue moon that guy coming into your house isn't just after your t.v. and I'm not about to give anyone the benefit of doubt when they are already breaking a bunch of laws lol. By the time someone becomes a "meth head" they no longer weigh 300 pounds. And some random anecdotal video will not prove anything. Have a look at this transcript from NPR. I think people have no idea about that. Sixty percent of the gun fatalities are suicides, and 40 percent, about, are homicides. And most people don't think about that, but it's really important when you think about protection. And the third scientific fact here is that a study that was done to look at whether having a firearm in your home actually does protect you, or whether it puts you at greater risk, showed that families and homes in which there was a gun, not only were they not protected against homicide, but the risk of gun homicide to people in those households was 2.7 times greater than the households without a gun. And the risk of suicide in those households was 4.8 times greater in the households with firearms. So it looks like, in terms of this very important question of protection, that having a firearm in the home doesn't protect you, but it puts you at much greater risk. And I don't think people understand these facts. Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't Okay Meth head was a bad example just insert random bad guy or something then. I would argue the suicide rate is slightly skewed because young males tend to enjoy guns more than females and young males are the highest per capita for suicide. Just for the record what I think is the ideal system for gun control is scaling levels of restriction. Level 1 would require a basic firearms course/proficiency test/mental health check/criminal record check and this would grant you access to bolt action hunting rifles level 2 would be semi auto with a more in depth course and back ground checks As you continued up levels there would be more steps towards purchasing and storing a weapon like getting the go ahead from the police/strict storage laws and more and more education etc etc. Obviously each level would have to be debated on and whatnot but nothing imo should be completely 100% banned. But to get access to Full Auto and silencers and what not you need to have been fully checked out repeatedly and proven yourself to be a law abiding citizen with a place to store your weapons that has taken all the reasonable steps to not be stolen. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 13 2013 01:09 farvacola wrote: By the time someone becomes a "meth head" they no longer weigh 300 pounds. And some random anecdotal video will not prove anything. Have a look at this transcript from NPR. Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't What's sad is that this should be common sense. We have a large population in this country that has become so emotionally invested in this debate over weaponry that they need studies such as this (which they ignore anyways) to show what should be obvious: more weapons will lead to more lethal violence. Suicide is something to take into account, yes, but the fact that households with a gun are MORE susceptible to homicide is due to that all-too regular occurrence of domestic violence. People get mad and fight all the time. Introducing more weapons into everyday society is just so obviously going to lead to more violence -- why does this even need to be debated? Yes, people have the second amendment right to own a weapon, but lets not let that rob us of our ability to reason and logically assess the value of placing highly-lethal weapons in every household -- next to every angry couple, scorned lover, angst-ridden teenager, etc. Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.[2] Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.[4] [2]Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Intimate Homicide (July 2007), at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm. [↩] [4]Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study, 93 Am. J. Pub. Health 1089, 1092 (July 2003). [↩] http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/ | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole. next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24667 Posts
On March 18 2013 01:13 sc2superfan101 wrote: all I know is I just bought a glock 9-mil subcompact and am getting a conceal carry permit ASAP. and all I have to do is go to the Sheriffs office and ask for one, and take 90 minute class or something stupid like that. no registering, no jumping through hoops bullcrap. no obvious infringements of my Second Amendment right. and this is how it should be. Thank God for North Dakota and fuck California up it's massive golden butthole. next buy is a pump-action shotty and a snub-nosed revolver and pity the fool that tries to fuck with me after that. I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 18 2013 01:16 micronesia wrote: I'm okay with ND's gun laws for the moment but I'm not sure if I'm okay with giving a concealed carry permit to someone who says "fuck California up it's massive golden butthole." You do realize how this post makes you look, however well-intentioned it may be, right? that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. Buy all the guns you want, your dick is still small. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On March 13 2013 14:32 ZackAttack wrote: Everything that I have heard from the anti-gun control side of this argument just does not stand up to any scientific, statistical, or mathematical rigor at all. All I hear from the conservative gun owner side is a lot of rhetoric about what the founding fathers wanted, or the US government becoming a dictatorship, or anecdotal evidence of protection. I just want one good reason why people should be aloud to own assault rifles that doesn't sound like it should be part of a tattoo next to a bald eagle. People already don't own assault rifles. Assault rifles are fully automatic, which means they're strictly regulated by the ATF. Why is it that people on the pro gun control side of the argument never seem to know what they're talking about? | ||
|
Aukai
United States1183 Posts
On March 18 2013 01:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: that was a bit of a troll on my part. I just went a bit over the top cause I'm excited. though I would definitely never act like that while applying for the permit. I'm not giving them any reason to reject me. edit: and I obviously was joking about the "pity the fool" part. I would only even think about drawing my gun in the most unbelievably necessary situation. 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time I will just use my god-given gift of running very fast in any instances of trouble or aggression on the part of someone else. I actually plan on almost never taking my gun out of the house, unless its to go to a range. I just wanted to play to the stereotype a bit. I have a concealed carry permit, and unless you're planning to carry at leas 90% of the time you can (I don't carry at work) Then what was the point in getting one? | ||
|
xactilian
United Kingdom2 Posts
One final thing, gun control is irrelevant to criminals and criminal groups, they get their guns illegally regardless; statistically, most gun deaths come from suicides, so I would support mandatory psychological evaluation prior to issue of a gun license, something which in all likelihood would have prevented many of the serious mass killings that have happened recently. | ||
| ||
