EPTIf 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. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 03 2013 00:05 -VapidSlug- wrote: And I would disagree. Vehicles cause many, MANY more deaths and injuries than privately owned firearms. Vehicles are much more dangerous. People kill their entire family, sometimes along with another, due to unsafe vehicle operation. That's a statistics fail, due to the prevalent use of vehicles. I think we can also agree that firearms can be deliberately used at least as dangerously as vehicles. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote: If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:18 heliusx wrote: intolerable levels of reading comprehension in this thread. That's what happens on any hot button issue in America: incoherent ideologues with terrible reading comprehension on both sides. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:12 FallDownMarigold wrote: Let's drop the whole "but, but, if gun control of any degree were passed, there would still be criminals who would not obey the whatever new laws were passed". Read it over, then realize how ridiculous it is to raise that point. There is no expectation that gun control measures will outright prevent anyone from breaking the laws. To attack that is to attack a strawman, so stop doing it. No one is arguing that stricter measures toward gun control will result in perfect obedience of the law, and that suddenly criminals will not exist. By that logic, shouldn't we have continued with alcohol prohibition? Also, you should consider that many of your fellow anti-firearms proponents act as if banning guns will magically reduce violent crime by reducing gun crime, as if criminals would seek to exist if a single type of weapon stopped being available. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote: Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:24 sunprince wrote: By that logic, shouldn't we have continued with alcohol prohibition? Also, you should consider that many of your fellow anti-firearms proponents act as if banning guns will magically reduce violent crime by reducing gun crime, as if criminals would seek to exist if a single type of weapon stopped being available. Sorry for nitpicking. Alcohol prohibition's biggest advocates were women trying to reduce wife beatings. Removing prohibition but increasing civil rights achieved that and hence achieved their goals. | ||
|
Snusmumriken
Sweden1717 Posts
On May 03 2013 04:20 Jan1997 wrote: Would just like to say that in some places they have started to offer large amounts of money for trading in their weapons (up to 400 dollars i think) This started happening right after the newtown massacre. Yes but I would not expect the us to be comparable to say australia in this aspect given the sheer amount of guns in circulation as well as cultural differences. I think its a good thing however and less guns is definately preferable but I doubt theres any quick fix. It has to be dealt with in many different ways, and not all of them are about gun control either. It seems to me that mental health is an issue as well as nonexistant backgroundchecks. And how anyone could oppose the common-sense law changes that were proposed is beyond me. Well not really I suppose... | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:33 Snusmumriken wrote: Yes but I would not expect the us to be comparable to say australia in this aspect given the sheer amount of guns in circulation as well as cultural differences. I think its a good thing however and less guns is definately preferable but I doubt theres any quick fix. It has to be dealt with in many different ways, and not all of them are about gun control either. It seems to me that mental health is an issue as well as nonexistant backgroundchecks. And how anyone could oppose the common-sense law changes that were proposed is beyond me. Well not really I suppose... Gun presence has metastasized like cancer. Its everywhere and cutting out one or two parts of it won't fix anything. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: Sorry for nitpicking. Alcohol prohibition's biggest advocates were women trying to reduce wife beatings. Removing prohibition but increasing civil rights achieved that and hence achieved their goals. Contrary to feminist revisionist history, wife beatings were never a problem in America. The Woman's Christian Temperance Movement opposed alcohol for "moral" reasons, the same way they opposed tobacco and non-procreative sex. The WCTU supported the White Life for Two program, under which men would reach women’s higher moral standing (and thus become woman's equal) by engaging in lust-free, alcohol-free, tobacco-free marriages. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:40 heliusx wrote: Gun buybacks are kind of pointless. All they do is attract law abiding people to sell worthless guns for a sum that is usually higher than what they would receive from a gun buyer. As long as guns are legal to produce I don't see much of an effect what so ever. Waste of taxpayer money. Yeah they serve no purpose unless there is a current or impending gun ban. | ||
|
Snusmumriken
Sweden1717 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:42 Jormundr wrote: Yeah they serve no purpose unless there is a current or impending gun ban. Isnt the case pretty much the same with gun-free zones? I mean as long as its ridiculously easy to get guns outside of the zones, and not hard to bring them into the zones. Well... And then they wonder why those dont work  | ||
|
Rhino85
United States90 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:55 Snusmumriken wrote: Isnt the case pretty much the same with gun-free zones? I mean as long as its ridiculously easy to get guns outside of the zones, and not hard to bring them into the zones. Well... And then they wonder why those dont work And the counter argument would be why are they gun-free zones in the first place? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 03 2013 06:50 Rhino85 wrote: And the counter argument would be why are they gun-free zones in the first place? because not all regional areas in the US likes guns and so make a stance against ease of acquisition of them? those areas being hurt by the existence of pro gun regions is almost a good argument for universal gun laws. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. Your logic is not sound and doesn't make sense, so go back to the part where you compared gun owners to rapists and murderers and try again. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On May 03 2013 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: Sorry for nitpicking. Alcohol prohibition's biggest advocates were women trying to reduce wife beatings. Removing prohibition but increasing civil rights achieved that and hence achieved their goals. Hey, if you have no idea what you're talking about, say it with enough confidence and people will believe you, right? | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html So they took away every legal handgun, but gun crime has risen... doesnt that illustrate the ineffectiveness of simply taking them away? I think if you want to combat guns and gun violence, you need to do what works. For example, targeted police patrols in high risk areas at peak times. Like what Pittsburgh did in 1998: http://repository.cmu.edu/heinzworks/204/ Increasing patrols by 25-50% in key areas at key times reduced gun violence by 71%. Or how about working to address poverty? There is a very close correlation with poverty levels and gun crimes. Or how about getting more people in school? Places where there is a higher emphasis on education results in less gun crime too. Why not focus on things that work and help people instead of trying to take things away (which has only seemed to have a negative effect). | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/kentucky-shooting_n_3189828.html to read White told the newspaper that the boy received the rifle made for youths You guys have guns made for kids ? What. The. Fuck. I can somewhat understand why american cherish their right to own a weapon but that seems a bit insane. | ||
| ||
