|
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 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?
That is an interesting question. I am a new gun owner and have only recenly begun thinking of gun politics. I purchased a bolt-action rifle for the purpose of target shooting as it is something that I have always wanted to do since I was young.
In America, we have the notion that gun ownership is needed to fight the tyranny of oppressive governments, like the British when we declared independence from them (which in retrospect seems like a ridiculous idea: the British being tyrannical). I think it is just the mythology of America being a place of "freedom" that perpetuates the idea that restricting gun ownership would strip a person of their "freedom". To Americans, guns represent power. If the government has guns, then they have power. By giving the ability to have guns to Americans, we give power to the people. Thus, we ensure the "freedom" of the people.
^I personally think this a somewhat flawed argument. (Ex: Islamic extremists decide to purchase weapons in America to install sharia law.)
I do think that having the ability to defend oneself with a firearm is perfectly acceptable. We live in a world with people who are not very nice or trustworthy.
|
On August 27 2014 22:21 Zandar wrote:
Assuming a hypothetical situation that won't happen.
I always wonder if gun lovers would prefer a world where everybody has a gun above a world where nobody has a gun.
I would prefer a world where nobody had a gun except for me.
Gun lovers would prefer a world where everybody has a gun, because it is "the great equaliser"; even the physically weakest can defend themselves with a gun. Atleast I've heard that argument a couple of times.
|
On August 27 2014 22:23 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +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???
Cars arent made to kill though. Besides, children should be taught to stay away from guns, not learn how to use them. We're talking about a 9 year old girl learning to shoot a motherfucking Uzi. I think sensible people should be able to see how crazy that sounds.
|
On August 28 2014 00:51 URfavHO wrote:Show nested quote +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? That is an interesting question. I am a new gun owner and have only recenly begun thinking of gun politics. I purchased a bolt-action rifle for the purpose of target shooting as it is something that I have always wanted to do since I was young. In America, we have the notion that gun ownership is needed to fight the tyranny of oppressive governments, like the British when we declared independence from them (which in retrospect seems like a ridiculous idea: the British being tyrannical). I think it is just the mythology of America being a place of "freedom" that perpetuates the idea that restricting gun ownership would strip a person of their "freedom". To Americans, guns represent power. If the government has guns, then they have power. By giving the ability to have guns to Americans, we give power to the people. Thus, we ensure the "freedom" of the people. ^I personally think this a somewhat flawed argument. (Ex: Islamic extremists decide to purchase weapons in America to install sharia law.) I do think that having the ability to defend oneself with a firearm is perfectly acceptable. We live in a world with people who are not very nice or trustworthy.
That's a good point about guns protecting against tyranny, mob rule could be a scary alternative.
The whole debate hinges on practical problems, not fundamental rights. A very similar argument could be made in favour of banning alcohol; that it causes too many deaths for something as small as personal enjoyment. The reason why no one bans it is because its just too difficult to enforce prohibition. The black market and the rise in criminal activity was so problematic that they legalized it instead; similar arguments are now being made in favour of legalizing other drugs like marijuana (at the very least, since its one of the most harmless drugs). Its not because its "good" but because its the lesser of two evils.
Guns simply don't have the same attractiveness as drugs and alcohol do to the general public, so as a consequence the same people who would want to ban alcohol feel its okay to ban guns, if not place tough restrictions on the types of firearms you can purchase. Its seen as a direct consequence that if you allow more guns to be bought, more deaths will follow.
But I don't see that as a necessary consequence. I would much rather live in a society where people are allowed the freedom to buy the weapons they desire, but that they should be forced to take mandatory training and psychological tests (after a certain period of time they should be retested).
If a crime or death occurs as a consequence of someone using their firearm, then the owner should face serious jail time (as part of their training they would normally be required to keep their weapons under close guard). I think these types of regulations would allow people to purchase the firearms they desire while dramatically reducing the number of deaths due to accidental use.
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be more constructive to discuss ways we can curb gun crime? Instead here we are endlessly discussing something that's a pipe dream. Guns are here to stay, regardless of your opinions on them.
|
I believe that the right to defend oneself is mostly a psychological feeling. As some have noted, having a gun could empirically make you less safe. It is merely the mindset that you have the ability to defend yourself that makes a gun worth having to some.
I am going to borrow from the Iraq/Syria war thread for a moment.
+ Show Spoiler +
As a human being, I am fearful of other people and their inability to be rational. As such, I find it necessary to defend myself from such people.
On August 28 2014 01:32 heliusx wrote:
Wouldn't it be more constructive to discuss ways we can curb gun crime? Instead here we are endlessly discussing something that's a pipe dream. Guns are here to stay, regardless of your opinions on them.
do keep in mind, this is an international forum in which cultures vary greatly sometimes.
|
On August 28 2014 00:01 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I was commenting on them. I said that given the nature of American society having a gun to defend your property is reasonable. I said a low-clip shotgun.
Now perhaps you can actually reply to what I wrote. I am largely ignored in threads like these because I am too reasonable, I think.
|
On August 28 2014 00:50 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Many, many modern goverments have been created by/after acts of violence against their opressers/former "owners" or civil war. Yet most have gotten over it and don't get a hard on for an armed population anymore.
|
I feel like you guys watch too many The Walking Dead etc. All this talk of "rising against tyranny" in perspective of advocating personal gun ownership is quite amusing to an outsider like me.
|
On August 28 2014 02:02 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 00:01 ahswtini wrote: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. I was commenting on them. I said that given the nature of American society having a gun to defend your property is reasonable. I said a low-clip shotgun. Now perhaps you can actually reply to what I wrote. I am largely ignored in threads like these because I am too reasonable, I think.
Probably because you are uninformed.
"Low-clip shotgun."
Haha oh lawdy
|
On August 28 2014 03:53 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 02:02 bardtown wrote:On August 28 2014 00:01 ahswtini wrote: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. I was commenting on them. I said that given the nature of American society having a gun to defend your property is reasonable. I said a low-clip shotgun. Now perhaps you can actually reply to what I wrote. I am largely ignored in threads like these because I am too reasonable, I think. Probably because you are uninformed. "Low-clip shotgun." Haha oh lawdy
Well Saiga's have small clip options... 
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
Of course you can get clips for shotguns, but I only see them in 3-gun or other practical shotgun shoots, not for home defence
|
When you use the word clip to describe a magazine people will assume your knowledge of firearms is incredibly limited.
|
I think it's 'typical' that no one has answered what the man actually tries to say, instead of attacking his wisdom of guns.
Why not define a gun (or just use pepperspray) which is 'intended for protection', has no appeal to the gun lover, and which is not made to kill large amounts of people. What is wrong to let people use this gun for their protection and prohibit the rest of the (more absurd) guns.
You can do the same in area's where you have to protect yourself against animals and just define a gun for that as well (like a rifle or something).
But i think the whole 'gun culture' is increasing the 'fun' aspect of guns, which is toxic for the general safety of your society.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On August 28 2014 04:31 heliusx wrote:
When you use the word clip to describe a magazine people will assume your knowledge of firearms is incredibly limited.
When has that stopped anti-gun legislators?
Shoulder thing that goes up
Heat seeking bullets
Shooting high capacity magazines so they get used up
And of course the most recent one (albeit by a HuffPo journo) where he confuses earplugs for rubber bullets.
It's insulting to see people who don't understand a thing about the thing they are legislating against.
|
You can be against Nuclear bombs without knowing how they work exactly and what kind of nuclear bombs are out there.
|
On August 28 2014 01:03 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 22:23 ahswtini wrote: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??? Cars arent made to kill though. Besides, children should be taught to stay away from guns, not learn how to use them. We're talking about a 9 year old girl learning to shoot a motherfucking Uzi. I think sensible people should be able to see how crazy that sounds.
Nobody has Uzi's. I don't think you realize how expensive they are. I think you've bought into the lie that if a gun is black and resembles something the military might use, it is both dangerous and common.
On August 28 2014 02:03 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 00:50 ahswtini wrote: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. Many, many modern goverments have been created by/after acts of violence against their opressers/former "owners" or civil war. Yet most have gotten over it and don't get a hard on for an armed population anymore.
Of course they don't want an armed populace. That's exactly how they kicked the previous guys out of power, and they don't want it happening to them.
And don't give me the whole "Small arms can't fight back, the government has tanks and jets." crap. The military had tanks and jets in Iraq, and never stopped the insurgents. The military had tanks and jets in Vietnam, and never stopped the Viet Cong. The Soviets had tanks and jets in Afghanistan, and never stopped the Taliban.
On August 28 2014 04:54 Timmsh wrote:
You can be against Nuclear bombs without knowing how they work exactly and what kind of nuclear bombs are out there.
The uneducated has a much better understanding of nukes than they do guns. Hollywood portrays nukes pretty well. They portray guns horribly. In every movie, the hero runs around at full sprint, killing 10 guys in 10 shots, firing from the hip. Suppressors make guns totally silent in movies, not just not so loud you need ear plugs to not damage your hearing. They portray any black "assault weapon" as being a bullet hose that never runs out of ammo, is fully automatic, takes no skill to aim, and kills anyone who gets so much as grazed.
|
On August 28 2014 04:57 Millitron wrote:
And don't give me the whole "Small arms can't fight back, the government has tanks and jets." crap. The military had tanks and jets in Iraq, and never stopped the insurgents. The military had tanks and jets in Vietnam, and never stopped the Viet Cong. The Soviets had tanks and jets in Afghanistan, and never stopped the Taliban.
Maybe instead of holding on to a useless archaic symbol you could actually try to hold onto stuff that matters, like not turning into a police state and keeping your privacy intact.
|
On August 28 2014 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 04:57 Millitron wrote:
And don't give me the whole "Small arms can't fight back, the government has tanks and jets." crap. The military had tanks and jets in Iraq, and never stopped the insurgents. The military had tanks and jets in Vietnam, and never stopped the Viet Cong. The Soviets had tanks and jets in Afghanistan, and never stopped the Taliban. Maybe instead of holding on to a useless archaic symbol you could actually try to hold onto stuff that matters, like not turning into a police state and keeping your privacy intact.
If you don't keep the guns, there's nothing keeping the country from becoming a police state. I'm all about peaceful resolution, but you need guns as a last resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/extfHKSLBZRNTCnVUT6TkdY8_VI=/775x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/671672/Screen_Shot_2014-08-25_at_4.16.57_PM.0.png)
