|
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 04 2013 02:08 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 01:57 kmillz wrote: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" 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.
We could care less what you or any other European thinks or feels about us. The majority of citizens like their gun rights, end of story. You should worry about the path of your own country, a country that bans the clothing of people they don't understand and hate.
|
its just that alot of people myself included cant understand why you would take it as a godgiven right to own devices that nowadays lets you kill multiple people quick and easy just because some dudes wrote it on a piece of paper some 200 years ago when these devices werent invented yet.
judging by the numbers your country has a big gun violence problem that seems to be directly related to the number of guns you have (hurr durr i cant prove that...sure it has nothing to do with that ;-). its also a fact that a large portion of people are dumb and irresponsible and cant handle the responsibility that comes with owning a gun. now our approach to this problem is that we forsake the right to own guns (or restrict it heavily) so that irresponsible people cant get guns easily and in turn keep gun violence low (of course there is still gun violence and there always will be, but you dont legitimize rape just because outlawing it wont prohibit it from happening right?).
its a "sacrifice" the great majority here gladly takes any day although it means we "own jack shit" =)
|
On May 04 2013 02:26 heliusx wrote:We could care less what you or any other European thinks or feels about us. The majority of citizens like their gun rights, end of story. You should worry about the path of your own country, a country that bans the clothing of people they don't understand and hate.
To be fair, this is a topic for discussion. But I do see a LOT of country-bashing in here as emotions take hold. People from the UK, for example, will never understand us, and we will never understand them. That is why there was an armed conflict between the two some time ago. That being said, I really don't want to live in a country where I have to decide between getting prosecuted for defending myself with a weapon or being a victim.
|
On May 04 2013 02:26 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 02:08 ZenithM wrote:On May 04 2013 01:57 kmillz wrote: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. We could care less what you or any other European thinks or feels about us. The majority of citizens like their gun rights, end of story. You should worry about the path of your own country, a country that bans the clothing of people they don't understand and hate.
The thread is about whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns, not if US citizens like their guns.
And it's even less about what weird false beliefs you have on French law :D
|
On May 04 2013 02:43 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 02:26 heliusx wrote:On May 04 2013 02:08 ZenithM wrote:On May 04 2013 01:57 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We could care less what you or any other European thinks or feels about us. The majority of citizens like their gun rights, end of story. You should worry about the path of your own country, a country that bans the clothing of people they don't understand and hate. The thread is about whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns, not if US citizens like their guns. And it's even less about what weird false beliefs you have on French law :D
We both know exactly what this debate has been about regardless of the topic title. And you also know exactly what I'm talking about in French law, unless of course you live under a rock.
|
As a European, i am against gun ownership in my country or bordering ones. Although it isn't too hard to find one in eastern Europe or some towns around here if you really want one. However, if i was American, i would definitely want my gun rights. Its a completely different country and society, with a scary government to top that. The monopoly of violence and power the government of the USA already has is terrifying.
|
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons.
|
On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons.
And peoples' desire to own excessively large and thick-framed glasses (hipsters) baffles me. This may come as a surprise to you, but I have discovered that some people enjoy different hobbies/interests than others.
On May 04 2013 02:47 TymerA wrote:
As a European, i am against gun ownership in my country or bordering ones. Although it isn't too hard to find one in eastern Europe or some towns around here if you really want one. However, if i was American, i would definitely want my gun rights. Its a completely different country and society, with a scary government to top that. The monopoly of violence and power the government of the USA already has is terrifying.
This guy is getting it.
|
On May 04 2013 03:36 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. And peoples' desire to own excessively large and thick-framed glasses (hipsters) baffles me. This may come as a surprise to you, but I have discovered that some people enjoy different hobbies/interests than others.
Because clearly guns and sunglasses are equally relevant to other people in society.
Being "interested" in something seems like a pretty poor justification for the risk that owning guns puts on society, no matter how much you try to downplay that risk. I can sort of understand the "I need to protect myself" argument, but interest? That doesn't fly.
|
On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons.
Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you?
All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them.
Because clearly guns and sunglasses are equally relevant to other people in society.
Being "interested" in something seems like a pretty poor justification for the risk that owning guns puts on society, no matter how much you try to downplay that risk. I can sort of understand the "I need to protect myself" argument, but interest? That doesn't fly.
Yeah you see, when you tell people that a part of their cultural and personal identity simply doesn't fly because it could potentially be a moral hazard some day... Well instead of accepting that public declaration of their lower status, they tend to get pissed off and tell you where to go and what to do when you get there.
|
On May 04 2013 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you? All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them.
I don't normally debate gun control because it's not an issue in my country. I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming.
|
On May 04 2013 03:43 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you? All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them. I don't normally debate gun control because it's not an issue in my country. I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming.
Maybe because the things you say are basically akin to slut-shaming except it's gun-owning-shaming and that pisses people who own guns off because your language is not persuasive, it is judgmental and basically bullying. You will find very few pro-gun control posts in this thread or opinions anywhere that do not involve being negatively judgmental about gun owners. And very few pro-gun posts or opinions that do not involve negatively judging the character of gun control advocates. Why is it so heated? Because it is actually is a deeply felt moral issue to both sides so of course it will be heated.
|
On May 04 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:36 -VapidSlug- wrote:On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. And peoples' desire to own excessively large and thick-framed glasses (hipsters) baffles me. This may come as a surprise to you, but I have discovered that some people enjoy different hobbies/interests than others. Because clearly guns and sunglasses are equally relevant to other people in society. Being "interested" in something seems like a pretty poor justification for the risk that owning guns puts on society, no matter how much you try to downplay that risk. I can sort of understand the "I need to protect myself" argument, but interest? That doesn't fly.
maybe a more comparable hobby would be cars. some people just love guns, as people love cars.
car lovers do illegal things to their cars, its actually very very common and the car would be impounded if the cop really wanted it gone depending on the level of modification but we, car enthusiasts do it anyways because we love the hobby. we have no intentions of becoming speed freaks endangering those around us(though there are, they're not responsible and gives everyone else bad name), but we'll enjoy the days on twisty mountain roads or track days or autocross events.
just because you can't understand it doesnt mean its bad. regulation is to blame, not love of guns.
|
On May 04 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:43 Shiori wrote:On May 04 2013 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you? All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them. I don't normally debate gun control because it's not an issue in my country. I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming. Maybe because the things you say are basically akin to slut-shaming except it's gun-owning-shaming and that pisses people who own guns off because your language is not persuasive, it is judgmental and basically bullying. You will find very few pro-gun control posts in this thread or opinions anywhere that do not involve being negatively judgmental about gun owners.
You actually made me laugh out loud. Me not understanding what drives people to gun ownership is not the equivalent of bullying gun owners.
|
I'm Canadian, and I can understand the desire to own guns for sport or protection.
I like where Canadian law is at, but I wish they had a more advanced, stratified licensing system that gave educated, well-trained gun owners the opportunity to have concealed carry. I think the gun culture — and social system and reasonable low crime rate — is mature and manageable enough in Canada to expand our liberties.
I would never assume that Canada's laws could or should be applied to America or vice-versa. The massive proliferation of legal and illegal guns in American in the past 30 years makes legislating guns in America an entirely different beast.
|
On May 04 2013 03:48 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 03:43 Shiori wrote:On May 04 2013 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you? All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them. I don't normally debate gun control because it's not an issue in my country. I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming. Maybe because the things you say are basically akin to slut-shaming except it's gun-owning-shaming and that pisses people who own guns off because your language is not persuasive, it is judgmental and basically bullying. You will find very few pro-gun control posts in this thread or opinions anywhere that do not involve being negatively judgmental about gun owners. You actually made me laugh out loud. Me not understanding what drives people to gun ownership is not the equivalent of bullying gun owners.
I didn't say you were. I said your language is. Saying that someone's belief completely baffles you is a very confrontational statement even if you aren't intending it that way.
|
On May 04 2013 03:43 Shiori wrote:I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming.
It is because people are starting to deal in ultimatums like
On May 04 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:Being "interested" in something seems like a pretty poor justification for the risk that owning guns puts on society, no matter how much you try to downplay that risk. I can sort of understand the "I need to protect myself" argument, but interest? That doesn't fly.
And they deal in these ultimatums without any sound reasoning. Nobody has provided any evidence that banning or otherwise regulating firearms to extremes reduces violent crime at all. They appear to be snake oil, feel-good measures that will address and prevent nothing. Of course, people have churned out things like "gun control prevents gun crime" but they are hesitant to make the claim that "gun control prevents murder" or "gun control prevents violence." Can anyone tell me why?
|
On May 04 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 03:43 Shiori wrote:On May 04 2013 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 04 2013 03:17 Shiori wrote:
As a Canadian, the prospect of gun ownership completely baffles me. I really don't understand what drives people to own non-hunting weapons. Has this non-understanding been helpful to you when attempting to persuade people who do not already agree with you? All I am saying is that this non-understanding is quite prevalent among gun-control advocates and is a large part of the reason why discussions about guns are largely dead horse beating competitions. The other large part of the reason is that in the end a large amount of gun owners simply aren't interested in new gun regulations. Or are passionately opposed to them. I don't normally debate gun control because it's not an issue in my country. I've been reading through this thread and I find myself somewhat at a loss as to how heated it's becoming. Maybe because the things you say are basically akin to slut-shaming except it's gun-owning-shaming and that pisses people who own guns off because your language is not persuasive, it is judgmental and basically bullying. You will find very few pro-gun control posts in this thread or opinions anywhere that do not involve being negatively judgmental about gun owners. And very few pro-gun posts or opinions that do not involve negatively judging the character of gun control advocates. Why is it so heated? Because it is actually is a deeply felt moral issue to both sides so of course it will be heated.
I actually do think that the NRA and some libertarians come off as 'gun sluts'. Their default position seems to be that anyone should be able to buy a gun and the current standards for selling and purchasing are fine and dandy.
I mean sheesh, have some standards, fellas.
|
Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631
An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142
While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167
It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US.
Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence.
Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391
|
On May 04 2013 04:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Based on current perspectives in public health, scientists argue it is probable that much might be accomplished toward the reduction in firearm nonfatal injury, accidental death, suicide, and homicide by addressing the environment in which these problems persist without imposing outright bans or infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631An easy and practical approach to reduction in firearm violence begins with small steps toward improvement of social norms with regard to gun ownership and regulatory tightening of irresponsible and illegal firearms transaction: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142While the current bipartisan attention focuses heavily on specific proposed measures toward gun control such as regulation on high capacity, rapidly firing weapons, waiting periods after firearm purchase, and universal background checks, which all may prove worthwhile to explore further, these specific measures cause disagreement due to second amendment interpretations and regional preferences. It is crucial to tackle the issue with an approach informed by other examples of successes in public health, which entails addressing broader problems in addition to examining specific proposed measures: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167It must be made more clear to the public that the lack of active research on firearm prevalence is alarming. Since the 1990s there has been a complete falling off on research into the area. Whether laws and regulations have good or bad consequences cannot be known without an increase in active research on firearm possession and use in the US. Show nested quote +Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Show nested quote +Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies.
...
This is not how the United States usually responds to a public health emergency. In the 1960s, the nation recognized a fast-growing crisis related to motor vehicle traffic fatalities. We created an agency, led by internist-epidemiologist William Haddon, MD, to launch an aggressive research effort and recommend and implement evidence-based interventions. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391
Again, in other words, mount a political propaganda campaign to change the culture, dressing it up with the facade of being medical expertise.
Not that I am criticizing propaganda, but please let's say what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
