|
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 04:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 01:03 Bleak wrote: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. Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 02:03 Velr wrote: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.
You can always debate if times have changed though, maybe it's not needed anymore. Maybe it's more safe, not to have guns in case you need to fight vs your government, who knows?
But i do know that there exists a point where you don't want more guns then you already have, a point where every extra gun only increases the chances of danger and misuse in your home. That's why the girl (8 years old) on the shooting range is an interesting dilemma, in my opinion it doesn't contribute to freedom to let such young children shoot guns.
|
On August 28 2014 05:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 04:59 Nyxisto wrote: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.
The US is already invading the privacy of their citizens more than any other Western country with the exception of the UK maybe, how exactly are your guns helping you? I actually don't want to accuse people of this because it sounds like mindless bashing, but it seems like a sizeable part of the American population genuinely believes that they're free as long as they can stack up guns in their homes and as long as the next shopping mall isn't too far away. We're not living in the 18th century, governments don't need to fight their population to limit their freedom.
|
On August 28 2014 05:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:02 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 04:59 Nyxisto wrote: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. The US is already invading the privacy of their citizens more than any other Western country with the exception of the UK maybe, how exactly are your guns helping you? I actually don't want to accuse people of this because it sounds like mindless bashing, but it seems like a sizeable part of the American population genuinely believes that they're free as long as they can stack up guns in their homes and as long as the next shopping mall isn't too far away. We're not living in the 18th century, governments don't need to fight their population to limit their freedom.
Didnt hitler ban the jews from owning guns?
|
On August 28 2014 04:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But does this destroys the philosophical point i was trying to make?
|
Even if I'd used the correct terminology you would have ignored me. That is the nature of holding to an indefensible position.
|
Have to agree with bardtown here for the last page at least.
|
On August 28 2014 05:05 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 04:57 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 01:03 Bleak wrote: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: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. You can always debate if times have changed though, maybe it's not needed anymore. Maybe it's more safe, not to have guns in case you need to fight vs your government, who knows? But i do know that there exists a point where you don't want more guns then you already have, a point where every extra gun only increases the chances of danger and misuse in your home. That's why the girl (8 years old) on the shooting range is an interesting dilemma, in my opinion it doesn't contribute to freedom to let such young children shoot guns.
We have classes in school to learn how to exercise our other rights, there's nothing wrong with learning to exercise your right to bear arms too. I would say if the girl's parents are responsible and have taught her the gravity of the situation, there's nothing wrong with her learning to shoot. It could even save her, like in those links the other poster posted. If she's taught well too, she's much less likely to hurt herself. The vast majority of those reports about how guns in your home make you less safe are from the poorest of poor neighborhoods. The statistics don't specify how drunk or high the victim was when he accidentally shot himself.
On August 28 2014 05:05 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:02 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 04:59 Nyxisto wrote: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. The US is already invading the privacy of their citizens more than any other Western country with the exception of the UK maybe, how exactly are your guns helping you? I actually don't want to accuse people of this because it sounds like mindless bashing, but it seems like a sizeable part of the American population genuinely believes that they're free as long as they can stack up guns in their homes and as long as the next shopping mall isn't too far away. We're not living in the 18th century, governments don't need to fight their population to limit their freedom.
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence?
On August 28 2014 05:09 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 04:57 Millitron wrote: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. But does this destroys the philosophical point i was trying to make?
Yes. You do not need to know how a nuke creates its effects to understand them. Likewise, you do not need to know how guns work to understand their effects. But Hollywood portrays guns having different effects than they really do.
|
Edit: Double post 
|
On August 28 2014 05:11 bardtown wrote:
Even if I'd used the correct terminology you would have ignored me. That is the nature of holding to an indefensible position.
Because your question is rhetorical.
|
On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence?
Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power?
The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality?
|
On August 28 2014 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence? Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power? The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality?
Because all of those issues except for privacy rights are imaginary. We havent even gone through a full election cycle, so we are still giving this the good ole democratic try
|
On August 28 2014 05:24 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence? Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power? The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality? Because all of those issues except for privacy rights are imaginary. We havent even gone through a full election cycle, so we are still giving this the good ole democratic try
The issues of racial discrimination and social injustice in the US are "imaginary", but having guns to defend against the redcoats is not?
|
On August 28 2014 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence? Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power? The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality?
Peaceful protest doesnt work. Look at Ferguson. And not the riots. They cordon off the media, fire tear gas and rubber bullets at the protestors, and arrest everyone.
There's one big problem. The media is mostly bread and circuses now. Even the news networks are just about the next election, or who made what gaff. They're not about real news. And when anyone does bring up an important issue, they're ignored, because that's not what gets the ratings.
And there are lots of people who are worried about privacy rights. But no one reports on the sane ones, just the prepper idiots building million dollar bunkers and buying 20 years worth of food because they think the rapture is coming or whatever. Which shows everyone who cares about their privacy in a negative light.
|
Public ownership of guns don't prevent a police state, the culture of its government and citizens do. Sadly, it looks like the culture of USA is lurching towards a police state, all the whilst to the cheering of the NRA crowd.
|
But this so called protection vs your own government is imaginary too at the moment. For me it sounds just like the guys preparing for the apocalypse, which is cool, at least they don't endanger other people with it.
|
On August 28 2014 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence? Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power? The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality?
There have been plenty of major movements against privacy violations by the government. Its been a major issue in every presidential election since 2004, the fact that no president has actually followed up on his promises doesn't mean that Americans didn't try. The social justice stuff is just laughable, don't tell me you think the government is actively trying to oppress minorities, if black arrests are higher its because they commit the majority of homicides and other violent crimes. And there is no major gender rights issue in America to speak of.
|
On August 27 2014 17:39 Penev wrote:Bump because I didn't see the need to make a new thread for this even if it's not entirely on topic. Besides the question if people should be allowed to carry guns you can also ask: Should we allow children as young as 8 years old allow to shoot UZI's on a shooting range? :-S http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-shooting-range-instructor-killed-girl-uzi-n189611 Are guns "fun"?
Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it!
Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens.
|
On August 28 2014 05:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 05:24 Lockitupv2 wrote:On August 28 2014 05:20 Nyxisto wrote:On August 28 2014 05:16 Millitron wrote:
We're still working on a peaceful resolution to the situation.
Lets say hypothetically all peaceful avenues are exhausted, and the situation only gets worse. What other recourse is there but violence? Theoretically? Peaceful protest. But it's a fantasy scenario anyway. The US isn't Syria. Why would the police/the government start oppressing it's own citizens with military power? The point is that the American public, especially the conservative faction, is completely apathetic when it comes to privacy rights, social injustice, race or gender issues. All of these things limit your freedom right now. If the theoretical option of your government suddenly turning into a dictatorship is so scary, why is the public not going completely crazy about all the things happening right now, in reality? Because all of those issues except for privacy rights are imaginary. We havent even gone through a full election cycle, so we are still giving this the good ole democratic try The issues of racial discrimination and social injustice in the US are "imaginary", but having guns to defend against the redcoats is not?
For all intense and purposes, yeah.
First gun control act was meant to disarm blacks. England tried to disarm the states. Hitler disarmed the jews. Pretty much everyone involved in communism and their populations. Its more of a running trend than anything.
|
On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens.
Watched the video. The instructor basically broke every rule of full-auto safety. He gave her a gun she had never fired before. He gave her a full magazine. He had her start on full-auto. He stood beside her, not behind her. It's almost like he was trying to get killed.
|
On August 28 2014 05:35 scott31337 wrote:Yes and yes, we do not need any more laws gosh darn it! Mistakes were made, instructor is dead, a tragic addicent, but enough with "think of the children" on every thing that happens.
It also shows something of the culture around guns, which can be interesting to discuss. As Millitron points out a few posts above this one, apparently very young children firing guns and learning how to use them is acceptable in the American culture. I think it's toxic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
