EPTSorry, but when you act like the government choosing to go "full on dictator mode" is a likely enough or realistic enough scenario to justify anything, I'm going to call you out on it. The government isn't even really an entity in this day and age. "It" isn't just going to "go full on dictator mode." Like what does that even mean? Why do you have any reason to believe that's a serious threat? Why are the plethora of checks and balances currently in place not enough?
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. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Sorry, but when you act like the government choosing to go "full on dictator mode" is a likely enough or realistic enough scenario to justify anything, I'm going to call you out on it. The government isn't even really an entity in this day and age. "It" isn't just going to "go full on dictator mode." Like what does that even mean? Why do you have any reason to believe that's a serious threat? Why are the plethora of checks and balances currently in place not enough? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:04 heliusx wrote: Not to imply that I think any other countries are comparable to the US but that statement is simply false. Re-checked my stats and clarified. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote: Sorry, but when you act like the government choosing to go "full on dictator mode" is a likely enough or realistic enough scenario to justify anything, I'm going to call you out on it. The government isn't even really an entity in this day and age. "It" isn't just going to "go full on dictator mode." Like what does that even mean? Why do you have any reason to believe that's a serious threat? Why are the plethora of checks and balances currently in place not enough? Your lack of reading comprehension is annoying. I was responding to someone's hypothetical. At no time did I "act like the government choosing to go 'full on dictator mode' is likely". In fact the only time I presented my opinion on the government doing anything like that (100's of pages back) I stated how far fetched I thought that notion was. So maybe in the future you should try to learn the context of posts you are responding to so as to not look like an ignorant ass. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 10 2013 09:58 Stratos_speAr wrote: 1) Every other developed country in the world with strict firearm laws has homicide and gun-related crime rates than we do. 2) Australia effectively banned firearms in 1996. A quick Google search of "Australia homicide rates by year" shows that, since then, many sources show that there hasn't been a single mass shooting and the homicide rate has a pattern of steady decline. "Things aren't complete and utter shit, therefore we don't need to fix them!" Ridiculous. We have higher crime rates than the rest of the developed world, higher gun-related crime than the rest of the world, and we have has well over 1 mass shooting/year for the past however long now. There is a problem, and just because you're too heartless to see a problem affecting large portions of this country doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be fixed. 1) No shit, there are less guns so obviously less gun violence, you have to prove that taking away guns reduces violent crimes, not gun related crimes. 2) See 1 There are over 300,000,000 people in the United States and your comparing it to Australia with a population of less than 1/10th that AND hardly any guns, it doesn't even remotely compare. On May 10 2013 10:15 Kaitlin wrote: Has it been brought up in this thread that the police have no obligation to protect us ? Several times, but apparently we are heartless if we want a way to defend ourselves before law enforcement shows up. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:19 kmillz wrote: 1) No shit, there are less guns so obviously less gun violence, you have to prove that taking away guns reduces violent crimes, not gun related crimes. 2) See 1 There are over 300,000,000 people in the United States and your comparing it to Australia with a population of less than 1/10th that AND hardly any guns, it doesn't even remotely compare. Several times, but apparently we are heartless if we want a way to defend ourselves before law enforcement shows up. 1) "homicide rate" is a pretty important crime stat that isn't simply gun-related. 2) There's this nifty little way to compare crime stats by dividing the total amount by a certain number of citizens, which is how these stats are measured. Also, this is simply irrelevant. Total rates are perfectly capable of showing us what we need; a downward trend in frequency since guns were regulated. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:19 kmillz wrote: you have to prove that taking away guns reduces violent crimes, not gun related crimes. Did you invent this or can you provide a link to the source where the authors make this conclusion? On May 10 2013 10:19 kmillz wrote: Several times, but apparently we are heartless if we want a way to defend ourselves before law enforcement shows up. Oh quit it... That's just being melodramatic. Here's why you were called heartless: You're unwilling to give ground on the idea of gun control based on what you think is reality -- that gun control would do nothing to reduce overall gun injury and death figures in the US. Scientists and other healthcare professionals who publish in peer reviewed, authoritative journals disagree, on grounds that efforts to implement more responsible gun policy would likely result in lower gun problem numbers. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Did you invent this or can you provide a link to the source where the authors make this conclusion? I'm also interested to hear why this is true. Apparently guns being used in crimes is as much of a concern as forks by this metric. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:25 FallDownMarigold wrote: Did you invent this or can you provide a link to the source where the authors make this conclusion? Oh quit it... That's just being melodramatic. Here's why you were called heartless: You're unwilling to give ground on the idea of gun control based on what you think is reality -- that gun control would do nothing to reduce overall gun injury and death figures in the US. Scientists and other healthcare professionals who publish in peer reviewed, authoritative journals disagree, on grounds that efforts to implement more responsible gun policy would likely result in lower gun problem numbers. More of the same from you I see. I'm being melodramatic? At least I'm not being a bigoted asshole calling people heartless because they want to defend their constitutional rights. You aren't willing to give ground to the fact that guns are used defensively and that some people don't have the means to defend themselves without one. Wouldn't that make you heartless? No, it wouldn't because I'm not a douche bag and suggest that you're stance on gun control makes you heartless. On May 10 2013 10:28 Shiori wrote: I'm also interested to hear why this is true. Apparently guns being used in crimes is as much of a concern as forks by this metric. Source: common sense. A murder is a murder, it doesn't matter what weapon is used to do it. If someone is stripped of their guns and wants to murder a bunch of school children what is to stop them from running over a bunch of kids at a playground with a truck? Psychopaths are psychopaths and they won't be stopped by gun laws. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
We've yet to see a single persuasive argument in favor of doing nothing toward more responsible gun policy. Here are a couple good ones in favor of thinking about gun control: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1680142 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167 http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391 | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:32 kmillz wrote: More of the same from you I see. I'm being melodramatic? At least I'm not being a bigoted asshole calling people heartless because they want to defend their constitutional rights. Source: common sense. A murder is a murder, it doesn't matter what weapon is used to do it. If someone is stripped of their guns and wants to murder a bunch of school children what is to stop them from running over a bunch of kids at a playground with a truck? Psychopaths are psychopaths and they won't be stopped by gun laws. It's heartless to say that "nothing is broken" when huge numbers of people are dying by guns and we routinely see mass shootings in this country. 20 kids are killed in an elementary school months after 12 are killed in a movie theatre and "everything is fine?" Yes, if you say this, you are heartless. Suck it up and face it. Also, more regulation that deters criminals and dangerous people from getting a gun doesn't automatically mean that your constitutional rights are being taken away. That's simply ridiculous. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 10 2013 09:23 kmillz wrote: The tyranny argument is just the reasoning for why the second amendment was put in place, people aren't saying that we would have a tyranny if it weren't for the second amendment, it's just there as a SAFE guard. Just because I probably won't get into an accident doesn't mean I won't put my seatbelt on. You named 4 "sides" about gun control and you said there is no "philosophical stance" of guns or no guns, which is complete and total bullshit. Your 4 sides were just non-sense hyperbole that just make you look even more condescending. There is no philosophical argument about guns or no guns--it's in the amendment, guns are here to stay. Politically speaking, the discourse is mostly about how much ammo per clip and how many bullets per pull. That's not actual gun regulation discourse that's dilly dallying and appeasing sad mothers. This makes it so this thread gets the 4 lumps of people. "Oh no tyrrany" "taking my property is slavery" "in Europe it's like _____" and "can't we at least treat it like we treat cars and medicine?" | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:33 FallDownMarigold wrote: And here we are, page 500! We've yet to see a single persuasive argument in favor of doing nothing toward more responsible gun policy. What's this we shit? You got a mouse in your pocket? Cause I know you aren't representing all of TL. I have yet to be persuaded by you, so I guess I should say the same thing about gun control? On May 10 2013 10:36 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's heartless to say that "nothing is broken" when huge numbers of people are dying by guns and we routinely see mass shootings in this country. 20 kids are killed in an elementary school months after 12 are killed in a movie theatre and "everything is fine?" Yes, if you say this, you are heartless. Suck it up and face it. Also, more regulation that deters criminals and dangerous people from getting a gun doesn't automatically mean that your constitutional rights are being taken away. That's simply ridiculous. You are so disgustingly insulting that I really don't even know what to say. It's almost as if you are blaming ME for the deaths of all the people who are being shot. You haven't even addressed my point of it not mattering how somebody is murdered and that if gun related deaths go down but overall violent crimes do not then the gun control was in vain. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:43 FallDownMarigold wrote: No one is blaming you personally -- that's your own fault if you think so. What he said was very clear: You dismiss death and injury numbers that cause great concern among physicians and healthcare professionals as "nothing". You're heartless by saying that. I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. You are both double teaming this strawman that I never even talked about. I "dismiss death"??? If you reduce gun violence but overall violence is not reduced, then nothing was accomplished. If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? I'm heartless for coming to this conclusion? Really? | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On May 10 2013 09:20 Shiori wrote: Maybe this is because I'm not a gun enthusiast, but can you fill me in on relevant uses for automatic weapons on your private land? It seems like overkill for hunting and self defense. I guess you can shoot at targets with them? Is there something more than that? Dangerous game, like wild hogs absolutely need semi-automatic weapons, because you often have to get pretty close to kill them and they can charge and maul you. Fully-automatic weapons make it safer. And yeah, you can shoot LOTS of soda cans and cardboard boxes too. In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. On May 10 2013 10:15 Kaitlin wrote: Has it been brought up in this thread that the police have no obligation to protect us ? A bunch of times. FDM and others don't seem to care. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:44 kmillz wrote: If 5 less people get shot to death and 5 more get stabbed to death, what is accomplished? Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks  On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote: In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote: Are you saying that for every gun death avoided, there will necessarily be another death created by another mean? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks Here is a story about 22 school children in China being slashed to death, will gun control stop this from happening? http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite I never said that it's an exact 1:1 ratio of people losing a gun and choosing another weapon, I'm saying it is plausible that you're entire effort could be in vain. On May 10 2013 10:45 Millitron wrote: Dangerous game, like wild hogs absolutely need semi-automatic weapons, because you often have to get pretty close to kill them and they can charge and maul you. Fully-automatic weapons make it safer. And yeah, you can shoot LOTS of soda cans and cardboard boxes too. In any case, "need" shouldn't matter. You don't NEED freedom of speech, you don't NEED the right to a trial, you don't NEED the right to privacy. A bunch of times. FDM and others don't seem to care. No he just keeps repeating the same nonsense lines and insisting that there are NO logical arguments against stricter gun control. On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote: Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! The right to bear arms IS a civil right... | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote: Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon. Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected. The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate. If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. | ||
| ||
