|
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 October 07 2015 15:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 13:43 Incognoto wrote:
I'm sorry but I would much rather live in a neighborhood where half of the people are armed and live responsibly, rather than live in a neighborhood with a bunch of scumbags who WOULD shoot me with firearms if they could.
Unfortunately, living in France, this is exactly how things are. We've had our home broken into on multiple occasions, luckily we don't have anything excessively valuable here or else we'd probably have dead family members.
That's the interesting thing about criminals: they don't really follow the law.
So it makes me piss myself with laughter when people want to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens. More power to criminals, less to people to defend themselves.
Gun shootings? 11 year old killing his sister? Jesus Christ that fucking little shit probably has no idea what he did. His parents are absolute fuck-tards since they don't raise their children and clearly aren't responsible in the first place. If laws made any sense, those parents would do jail time. ive seen this logic before. its absolutely stupid what youre saying is we shouldnt have laws on anything, because good people will know better whereas criminals would break them anyway. lets legalise heroin usage, because responsible people will still know not to use it. lets remove speed limits on every road, because responsible people will drive safely anyway. lets allow people to build bombs and sell grenades freely, because responsible people would know better than to blow shit up with it. see the flaw in your logic?
I'm not saying to get rid of all laws and promote anarchy, why are you putting words in my mouth.
I am saying that responsible gun-owners aren't causing any problems. They keep their guns safe, they aren't crazy. They aren't causing problems. Why are you going to justify penalizing the vast majority because of a few idiots?
I could get on board better and more proper regulation of firearms (especially in terms of psychological background checks and reinforcing legislation in terms of keep guns safely stored), however blanket bans aren't the way to go.
There are many, many people who responsibly own and use firearms, without causing any problems. You can't compare that to using dangerous drugs, or not wearing a seat-belt, or many other legitimately dangerous activities.
Sport shooting, hunting and self-defense are not dangerous activities unless the actors are irresponsible: which goes for everything, including driving, drinking, smoking, etc. Just because you don't enjoy sport shooting or learning about firearms doesn't mean you should impose your own point of views on everyone else.
Blanket bans aren't the correct answer, proper legislation is.
|
so your answer is to create more laws and regulations in an attempt to control guns, yet you just said in your previous post that criminals dont follow the law.
all those new laws and regulations are going to do is provide more power for the prosecution after the deed, it wont prevent criminals from killing people because as you said, they dont care about the law.
thats why the best option is to reduce the availability of such weapons. even if they want to break the law theyll have to bust their ass in order to get their hands on a gun and hopefully that alone would be enough to put them off, as is the case in many developed countries around the world.
also, i understand that americans enjoy their gun related recreational activities. what i dont understand is why they feel the need to own their own gun just so they can enjoy said activity. sport shooting could easily be done by fiercely regulating the facility and all customers would just use the guns the facility owns. when theyre done with the activity they return the gun and go home.
as for hunting, wildlife hunting imo should have been banned a long time ago. im not a huge animal rights activist, but wildlife hunting is a very primitive activity already and if it is encouraging personal gun ownership then it has to go.
self defense has already been brought up repeatedly so i wont get into it
again, as someone just stated above, you seem to think that criminals are a separate group of people and thus could be weeded out via gun control regulations.
what you dont understand is aside from the occasional genuine psychopath or mentally ill person, the average criminal who shoots someone on the street during a mugging attempt was at one point a law abiding citizen. its just that something dire happened to them in their life at some point and their circumstances turned so shit that desperation, depression, anger etc got the better of them. you cant possibly expect a gun shop to have seen this coming and refuse to sell a gun to the man.
what kind of background check or any other idea you have will tell gun sellers that this person is on the verge of breaking. this is why no amount of additional regulations for gun control will work. criminals arent born criminals
|
On October 07 2015 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:
ok well that is news to me. surely those weapons of mass destruction are regulated much more strictly than the average firearm?
i cannot for the life of me understand what kind of government would allow an average citizen to just pick up a c4 from a nearby shop and do whatever they want with it. the regulations surrounding the purchase of those kinds of weapons must be way stricter than gun purchasing, otherwise there is literally no hope for america
NFA weapons require a background check and a $200 tax stamp. Explosives require a storage area. Binary explosives like tannerite have no requirements whatsoever.
I find it interesting that people would regulate on feels, rather than how dangerous the objects in question actually are. I could go out and buy a tank, 105mm main gun, coaxial machine gun, and ammunition if I really wanted to. There are people in America who actually own and operate M18 Hellcat tank destroyers and F4 Phantom fighter aircraft for their own amusement.
Nobody* uses NFA "weapons of mass destruction" to murder people because it's absolutely stupid in terms of time, energy, and efficiency. There's no point driving to someone's house with a tank to murder them when knocking on the front door and beating them over the head with a monkey wrench would be more effective. Killing people at a school is difficult when everyone hears you coming from ten blocks away. Even the simplest of NFA weapons, machine guns, are impractical for criminal activity and mass murder due to high learning and operating costs; only two people have been murdered with NFA machine guns. One of them was committed by a cop.
Once again, most gun control advocates simply do not know what they're talking about when it comes to destructive devices and NFA weapons. The "worst case scenario" is both a) already a reality and b) literally safer than hamsters.
*Less than five. Since 1934.
On October 07 2015 15:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:i cannot for the life of me understand what kind of government would allow an average citizen to just pick up a c4 from a nearby shop and do whatever they want with it.
This is America. The government does not "allow" people to do things over here*. People have the right to do whatever the hell they want; it's the government's job to show why people should NOT be allowed to do something.
*I have a hard time wrapping my head around this rather authoritarian concept...do Australians only have the rights their government enumerates?
|
On October 07 2015 15:40 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so your answer is to create more laws and regulations in an attempt to control guns, yet you just said in your previous post that criminals dont follow the law.
I'm talking about the cases of 11 year old children using guns. True criminals won't be using registered weapons (legal ones) to commit crimes either way.
all those new laws and regulations are going to do is provide more power for the prosecution after the deed, it wont prevent criminals from killing people because as you said, they dont care about the law.
thats why the best option is to reduce the availability of such weapons. even if they want to break the law theyll have to bust their ass in order to get their hands on a gun and hopefully that alone would be enough to put them off, as is the case in many developed countries around the world.
Unfortunately, as i said before, most intelligent criminals won't be going to Walmart to buy their weapons. If you want to crack down on illegal weaponry, then do THAT. Crack down on drug cartels and the black market, yes that makes sense. However prohibiting gun owners from legally owning and using their firearms won't do anything to stem crime. School shootings aren't organized crime, they're a one-way ticket to prison or death. Let's not mix up
also, i understand that americans enjoy their gun related recreational activities. what i dont understand is why they feel the need to own their own gun just so they can enjoy said activity. sport shooting could easily be done by fiercely regulating the facility and all customers would just use the guns the facility owns. when theyre done with the activity they return the gun and go home.
as for hunting, wildlife hunting imo should have been banned a long time ago. im not a huge animal rights activist, but wildlife hunting is a very primitive activity already and if it is encouraging personal gun ownership then it has to go.
self defense has already been brought up repeatedly so i wont get into it
Again, you're bringing your own personal views and opinions on the topic rather than taking objective stances. Just because you don't enjoy hunting doesn't mean other people out there do not. I've had people I know who, back in the day, lived with very little money. They managed to eat a bit more decently during college by taking a shotgun and going out and bringing back some game. Put it in the freezer, guaranteed meat for a long time for a very cheap price. Just because you don't want to own your own gun (take it apart, maintain it, figure out how it works, bring it to the firing range). Again, just because you do not like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. I also don't see why personal gun ownership is a problem; responsible gun-owners and users don't pose a single problem to anyone.
Unfortunately my view is that you (and others) are too quick to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "security". I just cannot agree to that. Strike down on criminals, yes, by busting drug cartels and black market dealers, as well as thieves and petty criminals. Do not, however, penalize people who legally own firearms and use (and store) them responsibly.
again, as someone just stated above, you seem to think that criminals are a separate group of people and thus could be weeded out via gun control regulations.
what you dont understand is aside from the occasional genuine psychopath or mentally ill person, the average criminal who shoots someone on the street during a mugging attempt was at one point a law abiding citizen. its just that something dire happened to them in their life at some point and their circumstances turned so shit that desperation, depression, anger etc got the better of them. you cant possibly expect a gun shop to have seen this coming and refuse to sell a gun to the man.
what kind of background check or any other idea you have will tell gun sellers that this person is on the verge of breaking. this is why no amount of additional regulations for gun control will work. criminals arent born criminals
It always starts with petty crime and there are precursors to criminal activities. Either way, committing a crime with a legally bought weapon is the best way for the cops to quickly and efficiently have a trace on you. Legally bought weapons are registered. I can't understand why you don't get this.
Answered in bold.
|
you keep going back to the point that the freedom of law abiding citizens is being revoked. what im trying to say is each and everyone one of those 'law abiding citizens' who had the freedom to buy their own gun are potential shootings just waiting to happen. why a country is taking a risk like that is beyond me. youre effectively putting a head count on the value of your freedom. how many more gun related deaths do there have to be in america before people start to think, "ok we have too much freedom in regards to gun possession". Or do people in america just not feel the weight of the issue because it wasnt their family member who was shot dead by some lunatic who broke into his dads safe and stole his gun. actually this is the exact point obama made in his press conference after the latest mass shooting.
also your other points about registered guns being easily traced etc doesnt really do anything to prevent the crime. again, all those things do is just make it easier for prosecution to find and persecute criminals after the deed. but the issue here is the deed has already been done. someone or some people have already been shot. with the amount of gun related deaths in america, its pretty clear that registered or not, finding access to a gun is far too easy and this wont change unless there are drastic changes in gun policy.
|
What an interesting argument. Everyone could be Hitler, therefore nobody should have rights.
Do you feel the same way about alcohol and tobacco, drugs that kill ten times as many people as guns and, unlike guns, have no useful social values whatsoever? Unless you count addiction, birth defects, and impairment to be socially-redeeming virtues.
Or do you feel that only the potentially-dangerous things you do should be legal? Would you accept regulations on said drugs as tough as those on guns?
Guns can defend people and save lives. In the most extreme example, rural Americans can live hours away from the police; guns are literally their first and last line of defense. Why do you want to create victims?
|
alcohol (obviously not talking about pure alcohol here) is not inherently dangerous. its dangerous in excessive amounts or when combined with certain activites, which is why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, and if it could be moderated, drinking excessive amounts should be illegal too. the latter would be impossible to control however, which is why it isnt. tobacco should also be illegal; too bad humanity is stupid and greedy and governments like the money it brings. also tobacco doesnt kill others, if you die from smoking its a choice you make but at least its your own life. you could make a case for second hand smoking, but there are an increasing amount of laws being made to prevent smoking indoors, around public areas etc so you can already see that action is being taken by governments around the world. also you dont see on the news that some guy was killed with a cigarette, so its pretty obvious cigarettes are not as much of a threat to others as guns.
most drugs are already illegal so nothing more to say there.
why do americans think a society without guns is a society full of victims? how unsafe must you guys feel in your own country that you feel the NEED to protect yourself with a gun? think about how that environment came about in the first place.
i can say for sure that every other citizen of a developed country with a ban on guns wont feel that they are living amongst a society of victims.
and what does being rural have to do with anything? you really expect farmers in the outback in australia rely on police to protect them if they are attacked?
the likelihood of them being attacked in a place so rural is minute enough already, but on the off chance that it does happen, nothing the government does will prevent that kind of situation.
america: person with gun in rural area defends himself against person with gun
australia: person with knife in rural area defends himself against person with knife
same scenario different weapon. these one off scenarios arent preventable no matter what the government does. legalising guns for the safety of one farmer in the outback who probably wont ever need it at the cost of making guns readily available for anyone who could see a gun as an easy solution to their life problems? hmmmm
|
"Unfortunately my view is that you (and others) are too quick to revoke the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "security". I just cannot agree to that."
yet your country has the patriot act, spys on law abiding citizens, waterboards/tortures potential terrorists + Show Spoiler + and has to arrest a 14 year old boy for building a clock. but i get you dont worry...you have to draw the line at some point
|
On October 07 2015 16:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:
alcohol (obviously not talking about pure alcohol here) is not inherently dangerous. its dangerous in excessive amounts or when combined with certain activites, which is why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal, and if it could be moderated, drinking excessive amounts should be illegal too. the latter would be impossible to control however, which is why it isnt. tobacco should also be illegal; too bad humanity is stupid and greedy and governments like the money it brings. also tobacco doesnt kill others, if you die from smoking its a choice you make but at least its your own life. you could make a case for second hand smoking, but there are an increasing amount of laws being made to prevent smoking indoors, around public areas etc so you can already see that action is being taken by governments around the world. also you dont see on the news that some guy was killed with a cigarette, so its pretty obvious cigarettes are not as much of a threat to others as guns.
most drugs are already illegal so nothing more to say there.
Alcohol isn't inherently dangerous, LOL. It's literally a carcinogen that impairs judgment and behavior; it's dangerous in moderate amounts and even more dangerous in high amounts. Saying it's illegal to drive drunk is like saying it's illegal to buy a gun as a felon, except even more stupid. Also, tobacco doesn't kill others? Are you serious?
Again, the above drugs kill ten times as many people as guns and, unlike guns, have no redeeming qualities aside from impairment and birth defects. The mental gymnastics required to rationalize your stance are ridiculous...unless, of course, you simply want to ban "dangerous" things you don't do and keep "dangerous" things you actually do.
On October 07 2015 16:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:
and what does being rural have to do with anything? you really expect farmers in the outback in australia rely on police to protect them if they are attacked?
the likelihood of them being attacked in a place so rural is minute enough already, but on the off chance that it does happen, nothing the government does will prevent that kind of situation.
america: person with gun in rural area defends himself against person with gun
australia: person with knife in rural area defends himself against person with knifehmmmm
I see that Australia hates the elderly, women, and the disabled. Or do you expect grandparents to overpower criminals in a physical contest?
On October 07 2015 17:02 TRAP[yoo] wrote:yet your country has the patriot act, spys on law abiding citizens, waterboards/tortures potential terrorists + Show Spoiler + and has to arrest a 14 year old boy for building a clock. but i get you dont worry...you have to draw the line at some point
My point exactly; the language used for the above comes directly from the mouths of the gun control crowd. After all, if it saves just one life, just what are rights worth? Everyone's a potential terrorist; do you REALLY need due process, privacy, and speech? Do you want terrorists to kill innocent children?
There's a reason why your country and the rest of Europe built their own personal PATRIOT acts so quickly. It's because Europe likes it even more than we do. European nations didn't even require a multi-thousand death terrorist attack to conduct bulk surveillance and send it to both the NSA and their own security services. The above logic makes sense to Europeans, apparently...their governments sure listened quickly.
|
Back to square one. Guns = Freedom
That they do way more worse than good and their soul purpose is to hurt/kill doesn't matter because freeedoom, murica, yeah!
It would be hilarious if it wouldn't be so sad.
|
On October 07 2015 17:18 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 17:02 TRAP[yoo] wrote:yet your country has the patriot act, spys on law abiding citizens, waterboards/tortures potential terrorists + Show Spoiler + and has to arrest a 14 year old boy for building a clock. but i get you dont worry...you have to draw the line at some point My point exactly; the language used for the above comes directly from the mouths of the gun control crowd. After all, if it saves just one life, just what are rights worth? Everyone's a potential terrorist; do you REALLY need due process, privacy, and speech? Do you want terrorists to kill innocent children? There's a reason why your country and the rest of Europe built their own personal PATRIOT acts so quickly. It's because Europe likes it even more than we do. European nations didn't even require a multi-thousand death terrorist attack to conduct bulk surveillance and send it to both the NSA and their own security services. The above logic makes sense to Europeans, apparently...their governments sure listened quickly.
everyone is also a potential law abiding citizen and the probability for that is way higher. your argument for no gun controls is that more people wont use it to kill other people and thats probably true. but in the case of terrorists its suddenly the other way around and yet you take a different stance..
the vocabulary you are using makes it obvious that this discussion is pointless. "killing innocent children" "last line of defense" "australia hates elderly and disabled"
edit: do you want innocent children shooting each other with guns? cause thats a thing in your country
|
lol clearly nothing the rest of the world says is going to change an americans stance. actually ill correct myself, as there are some americans who actually see eye to eye with the majority of the world. we just cant change a gun enthusiast's stance
"I see that Australia hates the elderly, women, and the disabled. Or do you expect grandparents to overpower criminals in a physical contest?"
again, despite the massive amount of gun related deaths happening in america, most of which would have been preventable had guns not been legal in the first place, you still want to keep them around for the sake of that 1 elderly woman in a farm somewhere JUST INCASE she gets attacked.
the government has to think about "the greater good". yeah it forsakes the rights of some people and there will be people who are on the short end of the stick. but if your society is collapsing on itself something has to be sacrificed. thats the governments job, to make sure order is kept and shit doesnt go cray. currently in america shit is going cray, you just dont realise it yet for some reason
and lets flip the elderly woman scenario over; an elderly woman is in a farm alone far away and she gets attacked by a younger guy who went into the city and bought a gun for himself. the grandma didnt get to do the same because shes old and cant drive for hours. "if only the young guy couldnt get a gun so easily, then the grandma wouldnt have been shot dead"
oh wait. thats how it is in australia. or is your defense to that going to be "the grandma should have got home delivery"
|
All the arguments towards "weapons for everyone" in this thread leads me to think, that banning weapons would only do a marginally good to America's society in the short term.
America is so ridiculously fucked up they would try to find other ways to kill eachother, at least that % of really retarded people they have.
Come on, just accept that your lax weapon regulation leads to all that shit that happens nonstop.
|
On October 07 2015 09:55 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 00:11 zlefin wrote:
Acker, don't say nonsense about the study being intentionally misleading to the general public; the study says what it says, and like all well done studies, is VERY careful to limit its conclusions and findings. It's media coverage and others' opinions of the study that tend to overstate the findings.
The study was well done, and there'd be no reason to cut the CDC research budget over it, as it was well done.
I can only hope kwizach isn't using Kellerman as one of his studies, because Kellerman had to retract his own paper.
I wasn't. What is the study you say has been overused?
|
i'll just move the pro-gun crowds in one half of the country and let them kill each other. it's win-win.
|
On October 07 2015 18:22 Usagi wrote:
All the arguments towards "weapons for everyone" in this thread leads me to think, that banning weapons would only do a marginally good to America's society in the short term.
America is so ridiculously fucked up they would try to find other ways to kill eachother, at least that % of really retarded people they have.
Come on, just accept that your lax weapon regulation leads to all that shit that happens nonstop.
I....... What? So guns are the reason for every bad thing that happens in the US?
|
its pretty obvious hes talking about the shootings and other gun related violence...
although i wouldnt be surprised to see the gun culture, trigger happiness, 'i can because the law says i can' kind of attitude probably influencing a lot of other shit that happens too
|
On October 07 2015 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its pretty obvious hes talking about the shootings and other gun related violence...
although i wouldnt be surprised to see the gun culture, trigger happiness, 'i can because the law says i can' kind of attitude probably influencing a lot of other shit that happens too
Oh please explain.
|
Its pointless to argue this guys. I stopped arguing gun control with Americans (or even Polish gun lovers) and now i am much happier, i am not wasting my time trying to convince someone that cant be convinced. Its obvious nothing can be done about guns (like many Americans often say on those matters). Good thing is this "nothing can be done" zone ends at Atlantic.
|
The reason why nothing can be done is because the debate has a poor setup, and people are arguing over different things. If you fight for reasonable gun control instead of a complete gun ban, you'll see much less opposition. And things like "it impeaches my freedom" make much less sense when addressed to gun control as opposed to gun ban (unless you want to argue driving lessons and driving license are impeaching freedom), so honesty should dictate agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
