| 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. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
I know someone is gonna chime in and say people SHOULD do X, Y and Z during those times, but reallity is that gangs form up pretty rapidly and looting has ALWAYS happened. I've always wondered about gun regulations in areas that seemed stable and then totally broke down, and how it affected citizens, however I am totally clueless on the issue. (Ukraine, Egypt, Balcans?) New Orleans? | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
I always wonder if gun lovers would prefer a world where everybody has a gun above a world where nobody has a gun. | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:14 GoTuNk! wrote: I love how people take the stability of their government completely for granted, as in forever and always. How can you deny that owning a gun during a natural disaster/government breakdown is not useful? You do not get guns because you are expecting something awful to happen, you do because very shitty and unlikely scenarios do happen. Just like getting car insurance doesn't mean you expect to have a terrible car accident. I know someone is gonna chime in and say people SHOULD do X, Y and Z during those times, but reallity is that gangs form up pretty rapidly and looting has ALWAYS happened. I've always wondered about gun regulations in areas that seemed stable and then totally broke down, and how it affected citizens, however I am totally clueless on the issue. (Ukraine, Egypt, Balcans?) New Orleans? you get a care insurance because in most countries you are required to have a car insurance to actually drive that car. (where is your freedom now? :D) | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:10 writer22816 wrote: With a gun all you have to do is move your finger an inch and somebody could die? But I imagine that's totally insignificant compared to the utility you gain when you shoot as a hobby, right? It's exactly the crazy selfish people that have your mindset that I despise. Using this logic, if there was just one responsible gun owner in a city of thousands of gun nuts, the government wouldn't be able to pass a law restricting firearms? Laws are and should be made with the public good in mind. As a citizen you should prepared to accept inconveniences in the name of public safety. I don't pack bombs or dangerous chemicals in my bags when I go on a plane, but you don't see me bitching about having to line up past security. What a shitty post. With a car, all I have to do move my steering wheel an eighth turn and somebod could die. Oh but cars have an important utility that can't compare to that of a simple hobby, right? Your profile says you're from China, so I can totally understand this mindset that anything the government does is justified for the great good of the people. I find it sad but not surprising that stories like this instantly make worldwide frontpage news, but all those stories of a boy who shoots and kills intruders to protect him and his sister, or the GASP teen babysitting his younger siblings who is forced to shoot are never seen. Could it be possible, that children can be taught to use a firearm safely and responsibly??? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:21 Zandar wrote: Assuming a hypothetical situation that won't happen. Let me stop you there, what is the point? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:10 writer22816 wrote: With a gun all you have to do is move your finger an inch and somebody could die? But I imagine that's totally insignificant compared to the utility you gain when you shoot as a hobby, right? It's exactly the crazy selfish people that have your mindset that I despise. -- Using this logic, if there was just one responsible gun owner in a city of thousands of gun nuts, the government wouldn't be able to pass a law restricting firearms? Laws are and should be made with the public good in mind. As a citizen you should prepared to accept inconveniences in the name of public safety. I don't pack bombs or dangerous chemicals in my bags when I go on a plane, but you don't see me bitching about having to line up past security. Your logic is utterly flawed in that the responsible gun owners (in the US and elsewhere) largely out-number the gun nuts. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Furthermore, responsible gun owners, e.g. people who own and use guns without putting anyone else at risk, are also a part of the public. The first part of your post is also unreasonable. You could say the exact same thing about motorized vehicles. Someone could easily die if you move the wheel an inch to the right or the left. However, vehicles tend to be pretty damn safe if you aren't an idiot driver. The biggest threat to you is someone else who is an idiot driver. Should we ban cars because certain people aren't responsible enough to drive correctly? Think of the number of occurrences of drunk driving, speeding and using the phone while driving. It's absurd to ban vehicles because of an irresponsible minority. Well guess what? It's also absurd to ban guns for the same reason. Owning and using guns is not a selfish act nor it is a crazy one. The poster above you has a similar problem however his post is hardly worth addressing since it portrays the USA as if it were some sort of ridiculous anarchic state or something. | ||
|
The_Masked_Shrimp
425 Posts
Well people like you obviously don't become world novel best sellers ! And post above me arguments are flawed because you are comparing accidents (victims from cars are mostly due to accidents) to homicides (victimes from guns are more often due to murders). | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:43 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Well people like you obviously don't become world novel best sellers ! And post above me arguments are flawed because you are comparing accidents (victims from cars are mostly due to accidents) to homicides (victimes from guns are more often due to murders). I'm not making that comparison at all, I'm talking about being ready for unlikely yet life altering scenarios. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:43 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Well people like you obviously don't become world novel best sellers ! And post above me arguments are flawed because you are comparing accidents (victims from cars are mostly due to accidents) to homicides (victimes from guns are more often due to murders). Remember the Isla Vista shooting in California earlier this year? Crazy guy who stabbed three people to death, shot three people to death and injured more? Well in 2001, a very similar crime occured. At the same place. Also a crazy guy. Four people killed. Except the guy ran them over with a car. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
Cars are designed to move people from A to B and, sadly, can injure and kill people if handled badly. They also, in most countries, require you to complete an expensive test and have your car checked ever so often, you also have to get a car insurance and often various other things to be allowed to drive. If you drive them you have to follow a very strict set of rules or you have to enter a racetrack (which often also needs you to have special gear/permission and has its own set of strict rules). Guns are designed to kill stuff and thats basically all they do. You "shoot for fun"? Last time i checked almost no one has any issue with deisgnated "sports-guns" (you know, the funny looking ones that actual athletes use and are normally locked away at the gun range after use) or with deisgnated and trained hunters owning hunting rifles. People have issues with guys feeling that they need guns to protect themselves due to some Hollywood inspired fantasies, naturally whiteout ever having gotten proper training/education. Yes, this is not fair or nice for responsible gun owners, but there are plenty of things that are prohibited because a few people are morons. Btw: Teaching a child how to shoot an UZI should net you an enourmous fine or land you directly in jail. They are children because they can’t be held fully accountable for their actions, teaching such a person how to use a fullauto-weapon which has the sole purpose to kill humans is as irresponsible as possible. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:43 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Well people like you obviously don't become world novel best sellers ! And post above me arguments are flawed because you are comparing accidents (victims from cars are mostly due to accidents) to homicides (victimes from guns are more often due to murders). You don't commit homicide (self-defense =/ homicide) with a registered, legally bought, gun. You do it with an illegal weapon, generally speaking. Victims with cars are indeed mostly due to accidents, that doesn't mean the car isn't a dangerous thing in itself. I'm comparing cars to guns because they are both dangerous objects if the person using them isn't responsible. Cars are designed to move people from A to B and, sadly, can injure and kill people if handled badly. They also, in most countries, require you to complete an expensive test and have your car checked ever so often, you also have to get a car insurance and often various other things to be allowed to drive. If you drive them you have to follow a very strict set of rules or you have to enter a racetrack (which often also needs you to have special gear/permission and has its own set of strict rules). Guns are designed to kill stuff and thats basically all they do. You "shoot for fun"? Last time i checked almost no one has any issue with deisgnated "sports-guns" (you know, the funny looking ones that actual athletes use and are normally locked away at the gun range after use) or with deisgnated and trained hunters owning hunting rifles. People have issues with guys feeling that they need guns to protect themselves due to some Hollywood inspired fantasies, naturally whiteout ever having gotten proper training/education. Yes, this is not fair or nice for responsible gun owners, but there are plenty of things that are prohibited because a few people are morons. In your first paragraph you're saying that cars basically have lots of regulations around them and it requires a sort of "proof that I am responsible enough to use a car". This is also pretty much the case for guns. You can re-read the last page, there's a post explaining the enormous hassle it takes to own a military assault rifle. Furthermore, legally owned military guns are rarely involved in criminal activities. Why would you use a gun you legally bought, with all the traces of you it has on it, to commit a crime? You don't.. People do have a protection issue, and rightfully so. There are news article on this page about such occurrences, if you want to comment them. The problem is that the people who use guns correctly, without shooting others, are being completely ignored and people who commit crimes with guns are being shown everywhere in the world as some sort of "proof" that guns are bad. It's ridiculous. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
Given the prolific ownership of guns in the US already, it would probably be wise to allow low-clip shotgun ownership for defense of your own property. Nothing more than that is justifiable. You can shoot for sport in a facility designed for that purpose in many countries where ownership is illegal. It being legal to carry a gun through the streets is ridiculous. No matter how you try to ignore it, the fact that guns are designed for killing is relevant. | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On August 27 2014 22:23 ahswtini wrote: What a shitty post. With a car, all I have to do move my steering wheel an eighth turn and somebod could die. Oh but cars have an important utility that can't compare to that of a simple hobby, right? Um...right. Cars DO have an important utility for an average citizen that far outstrips that of a gun. I read on the previous page that you compared guns to skydiving too. I don't know if you're just being willfully ignorant or if you're just honestly that stupid. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On August 27 2014 23:38 writer22816 wrote: Um...right. Cars DO have an important utility for an average citizen that far outstrips that of a gun. I read on the previous page that you compared guns to skydiving too. I don't know if you're just being willfully ignorant or if you're just honestly that stupid. Again with the blatantly stupid name-calling with no real counter-arguments; you people cherry-pick one argument, say it's false ("because I said so") and completely ignore the rest of what was around the argument you cherry-picked. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 27 2014 23:35 bardtown wrote: No matter how you try to ignore it, the fact that guns are designed for killing is relevant. And in the course of human history, it has been demonstrated time and time again that some people need to be killed. Like the people that bust into a house and threaten a boy. Guns save lives everyday. The presentation of a gun is enough to end a potentially violent encounter. You don't hear about those events because nothing actually happened. You all talk about doing it for the greater good of society. Why don't you comment on those two news articles I linked? What do you say to those children who were faced with danger? Sorry you were victims because we blanket assumed you couldn't be trusted to use a gun responsibly? If you ban guns, you punish the law abiding, who are the people you are purporting to be protecting. How many mass shootings take place inside a gun free zone? Again, they punish people who abide by laws and rules, leaving criminal actors free to rampage, because guess what, criminals don't obey laws. Before you say anything else, tell me if you would rather the two teenagers in those two news articles had no guns to protect themselves with. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
On August 27 2014 23:29 Incognoto wrote: You don't commit homicide (self-defense =/ homicide) with a registered, legally bought, gun. You do it with an illegal weapon, generally speaking. Victims with cars are indeed mostly due to accidents, that doesn't mean the car isn't a dangerous thing in itself. I'm comparing cars to guns because they are both dangerous objects if the person using them isn't responsible. People do have a protection issue, and rightfully so. There are news article on this page about such occurrences, if you want to comment them. The problem is that the people who use guns correctly, without shooting others, are being completely ignored and people who commit crimes with guns are being shown everywhere in the world as some sort of "proof" that guns are bad. It's ridiculous. On August 27 2014 23:29 Incognoto wrote: You don't commit homicide (self-defense =/ homicide) with a registered, legally bought, gun. You do it with an illegal weapon, generally speaking. Victims with cars are indeed mostly due to accidents, that doesn't mean the car isn't a dangerous thing in itself. I'm comparing cars to guns because they are both dangerous objects if the person using them isn't responsible. People do have a protection issue, and rightfully so. There are news article on this page about such occurrences, if you want to comment them. The problem is that the people who use guns correctly, without shooting others, are being completely ignored and people who commit crimes with guns are being shown everywhere in the world as some sort of "proof" that guns are bad. It's ridiculous. Lets leave the car argument, plenty of people have told you why you are wrong. Oh.. The article about the 14 year old killing an, most likely unarmed, intruder that right after said « he is perfectly fine »? Seriously, that shit is fucked up. I would not like to live anywhere near that 14 year old. People that respond to an intruder by a gun are more likely to die than people that don’t. Thats a simple fact. So defending your property with a gun does the following : 1 : Your home is less save due to having a weapon around --> Accidents happen. 2 : By defending your home you are more likely to shoot some poor drunk sod or family member you mistake for an intruder than actually shooting someone that had an actually harmfull intent. 3 : You are more likely to get shot by an intruder if you have a gun than if you don’t --> Intruders in 99 % of cases don’t want to kill or rape you, they want to rob you, but some will undoubtly shoot you if you actually point a gun at them. All they do is give you some horribly wrong feeling of safety while actually making your home less save for you and everyone living in it. You want protection? Get a Dog, some Alarm System, hell even a saveroom if your really that scared. | ||
|
Nesserev
Belgium2760 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
| ||
|
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
A dog wouldn't have stopped that from happening. Alarm system doesn't work in the streets, and a saferoom doesn't do a lot cause you know... not in the house or even a room. http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ Guns are designed to kill. Still they kill less people each year than smoking. That's two different subjects though same with cars vs guns. That's the pro-gun side. Anti-gun side. Guns are made to kill people and allow people to kill other people because they want to kill people. And guns make that more efficient. (I don't have to post a link because everyone sees all those things on the news already.) Without guns it would be harder for criminals to kill more than one person at a time. They would have to use knives or their hands, which takes a lot more skill and strength to use than simply a pull of a trigger and pointing it at someone. This means the physical strength of someone or the group they are with dictates the capabilities of that person/group to do harm. (if we take illegal guns out of the equation.) So yes, a lot of the school shootings would have been less likely to happen (the ones where someone had an extreme-mental breakdown and run to his parent's gun cabinet and then to a school). The Aurora shooting, maybe not.He got his gear and guns partially illegally and had connections to get other illegal weapons. Moving on to my opinion: It's a hard choice to make. I don't own a gun nor have an interest in owning one. I do know how to fire both a rifle and a handgun as my extended family thought it would be useful for me to know how a gun operates. On how would the US government handle guns and runnings? They would probably make some deal with some cartel where they allow guns to be let in if that cartel gives info on other gun runners. Same thing they did with illegal drugs. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On August 28 2014 00:21 Nesserev wrote: Incognoto, please stop asking for a constructive debate if you keep bringing up false arguments, personal beliefs and weak analogies. Btw, can you and ahswtini explain to me why people need to be able to defend themselves against 'the government', and maybe this question will sound very foreign to some of us, but why is it a basic right to own a weapon in a 'stable' country, like Belgium for example? The US was founded by people who rose up with their firearms against an oppressive government. After the Revolution, the founding fathers remembered this fact, and wrote it into the US Constitution, giving the people the tools to do it again if it became necessary. Outside of the US, where that constitution doesn't exist, it comes from the very basic human right to defend oneself. The UK bill of rights (1689) stated that the people had the right to own arms for their defence. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Escore
RSL Revival
Big Brain Bouts
PiG vs DeMusliM
Reynor vs Bunny
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Ladder Legends
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
