|
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 May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:09 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 heliusx wrote:
What do shitty parents who have no sense of gun safety have to do with adults using firearms in a proper fashion? I suppose its much easier to use stories like these to "prove your point" than to have an actual mature discussion. If they are shitty parents who don't know how to manage guns--they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Better background checks and psyche checks are needed. I'm not opposed to either. But we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly. Laws don't stop rapist and murders from raping and murdering--should murder be legal then? lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. 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. 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.
If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it.
Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it.
Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact.
Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact.
Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact.
But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it.
|
On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:09 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 03:49 heliusx wrote:
What do shitty parents who have no sense of gun safety have to do with adults using firearms in a proper fashion? I suppose its much easier to use stories like these to "prove your point" than to have an actual mature discussion. If they are shitty parents who don't know how to manage guns--they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. Better background checks and psyche checks are needed. I'm not opposed to either. But we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly. Laws don't stop rapist and murders from raping and murdering--should murder be legal then? lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. 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. 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. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it.
You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting.
Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up.
|
On May 03 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:16 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 11:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It reeks of misinformation? Oh ya that's why it is published in NEJM and is peer reviewed etc. etc.
It would be nice if you would recognize that it's not some crappy piece out of a newspaper or some opinion in an Op/Ed section. It's a really fantastic read and I suspect you did not get very far into it.
Give it a chance, you might enjoy it. I wanted to see what people think about the guns vs. cars topic raised there, by people who have done extensive work in public health.
Figured it might be a bit more productive than talking back and forth sharing the same personal opinions this thread's already covered 900 times. How about we read the opinions of people that devote their careers to this sort of thing and then discuss from there?
How you managed to think it was "dickish" says you either totally misunderstood it or didn't even read it, frankly. And because you asked, I did not frame it with my own agenda because I wanted to let the article do the talking, not me. Public health is the wrong approach to addressing what is fundamentally a problem with violent crime. We have criminology journals for that, and they conclude that the problem is with crime, not guns. We have a violence problem, not a gun problem, and banning guns means that violence will simply be carried out by other means (Boston Marathon, anyone?) The authors already address this argument in the paper. Re: individuals
Paste the relevant portions, please.
On May 03 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Moreover, specific incidents (Boston) are not the focus. The focus is the big numbers
You missed the point why the example was given. The point was to illustrate that removing guns doesn't solve the root problem of violence, just a single means that it can be carried out. If you want to commit an act of terror, or kill your gangland rival, or commit suicide, it doesn't matter if you don't have a gun, you'll just use a different weapon.
|
On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we.
But why should it be your right?
|
On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right?
Because we put it on a peice of paper to start out the country, and the country's doing pretty good.
|
On May 04 2013 00:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because we put it on a peice of paper to start out the country, and the country's doing pretty good.
i would disagree. Also, thats not a very good argument. (unless you are joking and i am missing the joke)
|
On May 04 2013 00:57 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because we put it on a peice of paper to start out the country, and the country's doing pretty good. i would disagree. Also, thats not a very good argument. (unless you are joking and i am missing the joke)
Doing "pretty well" is completely subjective so obviously not everyone will agree on whether or not it is "doing well" but you thinking it is "not doing well" isn't a very good argument to take away peoples rights either, unless you can provide significant data to support that taking away those rights will change that.
|
On May 04 2013 01:11 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 00:57 Paljas wrote:On May 04 2013 00:56 Sermokala wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because we put it on a peice of paper to start out the country, and the country's doing pretty good. i would disagree. Also, thats not a very good argument. (unless you are joking and i am missing the joke) Doing "pretty well" is completely subjective so obviously not everyone will agree on whether or not it is "doing well" but you thinking it is "not doing well" isn't a very good argument to take away peoples rights either, unless you can provide significant data to support that taking away those rights will change that.
thats what i was trying to say. Him thinking the USA is doing pretty good is not an actual argument.
And the fact that its written onto a piece of paper is not a good argument either
|
It was ment as a deep ironic wit type answer. Because it was written on a piece of paper is why the supreme court won't allow a national gun ban to happen. and because things are "going well" any attempt at a change to the constitution will never happen.
It doesn't really matter if we should have that right because it isn't a question of if its a question of is.
|
On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right?
Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State".
Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular.
|
On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular.
Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society?
|
On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society?
Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system.
Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not.
|
On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not.
That's an absolutely awful argument.
|
On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not.
We're not jealous of your guns, let me tell you that ;D
It's your right alright, but it doesn't make it right, amirite?
|
On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society?
Not in "A" modern society necessarily, but THIS society, yes.
|
On May 04 2013 01:51 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not. We're not jealous of your guns, let me tell you that ;D It's your right alright, but it doesn't make it right, amirite?
this. here is all these people thinking we europeans are jealous of their so called freedoms
|
On May 04 2013 01:47 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not. That's an absolutely awful argument.
Don't need an argument when there is no debate currently standing about trying to justify personal firearm ownership. The debate that is slowly dying is whether citizens should have the right to own certain firearms based on arbitrary criteria.
There is no point in trying to justify a right that has existed in a country for almost 225 years or so. The shear fact that it has survived in a document providing a bill of rights for our citizens. Should I try and justify each and every one of those or do you simply think that, because one of them provides individual firearm ownership, it is in a different realm of debate and requires justification?
The second amendment not only exists for the defense against tyranny, but for self defense of oneself which is actually an underlying reason within the DC v Heller case. The way we treat our Constitution is not by trying to justify each individual right in a debate, it's by interpreting the Constitution. We may all have our own various reasons that we believe the right to own firearms is justified, but in the end, the belief of what you feel is right is null and void. It does not matter and has no bearing on the Constitution. Why don't you justify the presence of your remaining royal family system nonsense? Regardless of what you say, the Queen won't suddenly die of a heart attack because you can't justify it.
obligatory 'merica
|
On May 04 2013 01:54 flexgd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:51 ZenithM wrote:On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not. We're not jealous of your guns, let me tell you that ;D It's your right alright, but it doesn't make it right, amirite? this. here is all these people thinking we europeans are jealous of their so called freedoms
Where are all these people thinking you are jealous? It's pretty common knowledge most people outside of the United States hate our gun laws, why would that translate into us thinking you envy them?
lol @ "so called"
|
On May 04 2013 01:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:54 flexgd wrote:On May 04 2013 01:51 ZenithM wrote:On May 04 2013 01:46 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 01:42 kollin wrote:On May 04 2013 01:40 stevarius wrote:On May 04 2013 00:32 kollin wrote:On May 03 2013 13:37 Arctic Daishi wrote:
Absolutely. We'll never give up our rights, nor should we. But why should it be your right? Because the right itself clearly tells why it should be our right: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Goddamn people, read the constitution if you want to criticize it. Some would argue it's a god-given right, but I'm not religious so my answer is secular. Yes, but SHOULD it be on there, in a modern society? Who gives a fuck. It's there and will always be there. It's ingrained in our society and our belief system. Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not. We're not jealous of your guns, let me tell you that ;D It's your right alright, but it doesn't make it right, amirite? this. here is all these people thinking we europeans are jealous of their so called freedoms Where are all these people thinking you are jealous? It's pretty common knowledge most people outside of the United States hate our gun laws, why would that translate into us thinking you envy them? lol @ "so called"
Your citizens gave up their rights to own jack shit. We will not.
stevarius was kinda assuming here that we want that "right" in the first place, which isn't true, so there isn't anything to give up.
|
On May 03 2013 04:12 Paljas wrote:
Completly banning guns would solve this problem, wouldnt it?
Did completely banning bombs stop bombings? Did banning murder stop murder? Did banning marijuana stop marijuana?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
