|
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 June 15 2016 11:12 thePunGun wrote:It is relevant because that guy used a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine to execute 35 innocent people and wound 23 more that day! Australias reponse was what any sane nation would do, there was no gun lobby blocking any attempt on legislation. That's why it is relevant! Sorry bud, it's been a long day, I might have misread your post, but Port Arthur was a turning point for your country...and ...here we are discussing gun legislation in the U.S....again
No, Australia's response is what any emotional reactionary would do, and what apparently, is a common strain of cognitive dissonance among the "left". Blame the guns for the Orlando incident, indicting every gun owner in the country, but then vociferously defends the idea that you can't blame the entirity of Islam because of this individuals actions. You guys are real silly. It's like it's apostasy to have any political commonality with the "others". This country is entirely neurotic. Guess what, the sane thing would be to uphold our natural rights even for the devil himself, as Paine would admonish. Once you've given in to emotional reactionism than nothing is safe. On what grounds are you going to defend the 4th Amendment now? Privacy? Speedy Trials? Abuse of a right does not negate the right. We all ready have laws to prosecute folks for murder, attempting the same stupid mistakes that the "right" loves to do with stuff like Prohibition/Vice Laws is just stupid.
You're not a saint, and you don't hold any moral high ground. The gun-grabbers love to anoint themselves.
|
On June 15 2016 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 02:39 Incognoto wrote:On June 15 2016 01:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Throughout social media, there has been a sudden increase in the number of "shots fired" at Republicans because of the (tragic) shots fired inside the gay club. And rightly so. Republicans need to take responsibility for perpetuating the hatred of LGBT and other minorities, which in turn helps create an environment where they're targeted and killed. No new bills, no new proposals, no new reactions besides "thoughts and prayers lulz". The core principle of prejudice is found in both religious fundamentalism and the modern Republican Party. And the death toll increases every day because of it. Here are some of the pictures (large/ not resized): + Show Spoiler + not that i like any of those people, but to me it's a little cheap to blame republicans for the shooting? they're idiots in many ways but to say they set up the conditions for terrorism is a stretch, imo Republicans are blocking the ability to even do research on gun violence in America, let alone allow us to make any changes. Furthermore, they're continuously trying to label and treat minority groups (such as LGBT) as second-class citizens. When the status quo is a daily mass shooting and discrimination in this country, and one political party refuses to acknowledge it and do anything about it, they're part of the problem. Saying "thoughts and prayers" is the most hollow and offensive thing a politician could say, seeing as how he could actually be trying to do something meaningful in response to these tragedies.
OK that makes a lot more sense to me, I hadn't seen it from that angle.
I'd be hard-pressed to disagree that the United States political landscape is fucked up in more ways than one.
|
Australia has more guns in private hands now than before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.Just last year there was a terrorist attack in Sydney, an ISIS supporter with no gun license who used an sawn off shotgun (illegal modification on a gun he obtained illegally) at the Lindt cafe siege.Crims will always get their hands on guns if they really want them.
|
Thought I'd leave this here.
As someone outside the US, I live in a country where gun ownership is illegal. We do however have compulsory military service for two years and during that time I trained and shot an ar15. Ran obstacle courses with it, marched over night with it, cleaned and stripped that rifle.
And I'm just clueless as to why that kind of rifle is so easily available in the US. What sort of self defense requires that? Last I checked the US didn't have marauding bands of heavily armed outlaws.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On June 15 2016 16:37 levelping wrote:
Thought I'd leave this here.
As someone outside the US, I live in a country where gun ownership is illegal. We do however have compulsory military service for two years and during that time I trained and shot an ar15. Ran obstacle courses with it, marched over night with it, cleaned and stripped that rifle.
And I'm just clueless as to why that kind of rifle is so easily available in the US. What sort of self defense requires that? Last I checked the US didn't have marauding bands of heavily armed outlaws.
Again, in Czech Republic you can own LMG, you can own .50 BMG rifle(I don't think bigger rifles are sold but you can get them if you know how(legally!), though there's no shooting range allowing such guns  ) and you can own AR-15. People who likes these guns own them. For the joy of shooting with them(though there's only 1 shooting range allowing .50 BMG rifle(maybe)), for the joy of having them. Nobody cares.
Though as I mentioned earlier we have to register guns. It's better if government knows what guns are in the country as if you make them illegal passionate people will get them anyway but you don't know they have them. Also they don't train with them(because they're illegal) which increases a chance someone will be hurt during manipulation...
|
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
^ Very nice read, thanks to whoever linked that.
So, in other words, it's become pointless to dither about assault rifles at all. Pretty much any firearm is going to be lethal, so no point in trying to talk about regulating only assault rifles or something. Magazine capacity is also irrelevant.
At this point I think it's pointless to discuss the merits of firearm in technical terms, we should realistically just assume that every single firearm a lethal threat to many, many people. Any semi-automatic weapon can be used to massacre people.
So pretty much every firearm (regardless of type) needs more regulation than what is already had.
Improved background checks is one thing, but the NRA and Republicans should also really fuck off and let gun studies take place in the first place. As well as list of people who possess firearms.
People looking to possess a firearm need to also somehow prove that they are to be trusted with it. Something which is not the case today.
On June 15 2016 16:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 11:12 thePunGun wrote:It is relevant because that guy used a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine to execute 35 innocent people and wound 23 more that day! Australias reponse was what any sane nation would do, there was no gun lobby blocking any attempt on legislation. That's why it is relevant! EDIT: wait I'm pretty damn sure I was supporting you but whatever Sorry bud, it's been a long day, I might have misread your post, but Port Arthur was a turning point for your country...and ...here we are discussing gun legislation in the U.S....again No, Australia's response is what any emotional reactionary would do, and what apparently, is a common strain of cognitive dissonance among the "left". Blame the guns for the Orlando incident, indicting every gun owner in the country, but then vociferously defends the idea that you can't blame the entirity of Islam because of this individuals actions. You guys are real silly. It's like it's apostasy to have any political commonality with the "others". This country is entirely neurotic. Guess what, the sane thing would be to uphold our natural rights even for the devil himself, as Paine would admonish. Once you've given in to emotional reactionism than nothing is safe. On what grounds are you going to defend the 4th Amendment now? Privacy? Speedy Trials? Abuse of a right does not negate the right. We all ready have laws to prosecute folks for murder, attempting the same stupid mistakes that the "right" loves to do with stuff like Prohibition/Vice Laws is just stupid. You're not a saint, and you don't hold any moral high ground. The gun-grabbers love to anoint themselves.
I agree with the gist of your post.
Though, does this mean that you would NOT be in favor of a little more regulation, which would keep firearms out of the wrong hands without impeding law abiding citizens?
|
On June 15 2016 16:37 levelping wrote:
Thought I'd leave this here.
As someone outside the US, I live in a country where gun ownership is illegal. We do however have compulsory military service for two years and during that time I trained and shot an ar15. Ran obstacle courses with it, marched over night with it, cleaned and stripped that rifle.
And I'm just clueless as to why that kind of rifle is so easily available in the US. What sort of self defense requires that? Last I checked the US didn't have marauding bands of heavily armed outlaws.
It is required/preferred to shoot at "small game", according to some posters in this thread.
Clearly the Singapore army is being trained to shoot deer during their two years compulsory military service.
|
On June 15 2016 16:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Australia has more guns in private hands now than before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.Just last year there was a terrorist attack in Sydney, an ISIS supporter with no gun license who used an sawn off shotgun (illegal modification on a gun he obtained illegally) at the Lindt cafe siege.Crims will always get their hands on guns if they really want them.
While you are right to some extent and a determined criminal will always find a way to get ahold of a gun, the stricter your country's gun laws are, the more difficult it is for a potential criminal to acquire one and the more likely they are to get caught or at least leave a trace and implicate people involved in illegal gun sales in the process. Tighter gun control also mean the nutjobs who just decide to fuck it all and shoot someone one day will likely not have the means to do so.
Even if you make it illegal for 'potential terrorists' to own guns in the US, it is trivial for such a person to get a gun without a license since the supply of weapons is simply so big. It's like making bringing bladed weapons in public illegal - you can make a law about it, sure, but if a guy decides he wants to stab someone it's just too easy to pick up a knife and do it anyway.
|
Arguing with Wegandi about regulation of basically anything... Well, you might as well try arguing with gravity once you realise that your parachute won't open.
Imho this whole ordeal is a cultural thing, many countries have pretty lax gunlaws and everyone that really wants to and doesn't have mental issues or a criminal history can own powerfull guns. Yet I don't know any other country where so many people are so obsessed and proud about owning weapons like the US.
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
|
On June 15 2016 09:06 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 08:49 thePunGun wrote:
I'm not against guns by any means, I own a glock and a kimber 1911 and enjoy target shooting, cleaning them and all that.
But why is it that I can buy a semi-automatic rifle, no questions asked, but I cannot board a plane with a shampoo bottle?!
Maybe because the shampoo lobby doesn't own the senate....and the fact that 3 attempts to get stricter legislation failed the last decade makes me wonder: Why are we stuck in this insane cycle of denial? I'm gonna call bullshit on this. If you actually own and operate firearms responsibly you would know that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Nor would you make silly statements like you have in this thread that scream complete ignorance on the subject of firearms in general.
Just a sidenote, I own and operate a (specifically singular here) Hunting Rifle responsibly. It is a very beautiful Ferlacher Rifle and I could probably spend 10 minutes talking about it in German. I took a course regarding hunting (6 months) and I passed an exam for my hunting license (yes that is the way we do this in Austria). Wether the AR-15 is an assault rifle or not is something I do not know, and frankly do not need to know. Why should I? Unless i decided to buy a new one (or a different caliber) and start doing research on what to buy it really doesn't matter to me.
In my case the rifle I inherited from my Grandfather (and registered as is the law here) is enough for all my hunting needs. In this specific case (after reading the newspaper) I now know that this rifle is considered a restricted ("category B") weapon in Austria, meaning I'd need another (more difficult to get) license on top of my hunting license. True Assault Rifles would be category A (as in, you won't be able to buy that weapon at all unless your the military).
edit: after rereading my post I'll try to clarify the 2nd point i was trying to make. The first point (even if it was somewhat petty) is that regardless of my qualifications and gun ownership I didn't know what kind of weapon the aforementioned rifle was until I read the newspaper yesterday because I had never seen one nor considered buying one before.
The second and maybe more relevant point (at least it is certainly less specific) was for comparison how we categorize weapons in Austria.
I'll generalize a bit to make it easier but if someone wants it down to the last paragraph in legalese it will have to be in German sorry about that.
We have 4 categories of weapons (note that actually includes bladed weapons)
from the top is category A the so called military grade weapons. This category includes full automatic weapons, grenade throwers, grenades, etc. As a private person it is impossible to buy any weapon from this category and it is illegal to own any. Some collectors have historic weapons (usually great war or WWII leftovers) but those need to be spiked and certified as unuseable.
Next category B, this includes almost all semi-automatic weapons except for 3 specific exceptions which are also counted as category A (to sum up the exceptions i'd probably use the words "high power sniper rifles" or "anti-material sniper rifles") and a specific exception which makes a semi automatic weapon category C (i'll go into that below). Category B requires the "Waffenpass" the more difficult to get license I mentioned above. At this moment and with our current goverment it is basically impossible for me to get it unless i can demonstrate need (meaning I need it for a job as a security guard). To be very specific this license concerns carrying the weapon outside of your house. If all I wanted was a gun to put under my pillow every night (and had a gunsafe where i locked it away every single time i was out of the room) I could buy a glock or whatever semi-automatic pistol interested me. I could also buy it and carry it disassembled and in a carrying case to a shooting gallery to practise. Without the pass I could not carry it assembled in public (concealed or not doesn't really matter for Austrian law).
So we have the 2 categories which are considered almost impossible to get (or lets say heavily restricted) next up category C: Basically any bolt action rifle, or single shot or semi automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine of 5 shots maximum (and i do mean fixed). This is largely considered the hunting rifle category. Almost every single hunting weapon is here, most people use Steyr or Mannlicher bolt action rifles if they are older, some (few) have the mentioned semi automatic rifles. My own is a single shot rifle with a fairly heavy calibre. These weapons you can buy as long as you register them. There are some restrictions on how to store them at home and how you are allowed to carry them (basically disassembled) but as long as you are not restricted from owning weapons due to a prior conviction you can buy one of these.
category D is mostly regarding stuff like pepper sprays, knifes tazers to be honest I don't know much about it because it never related to me. My hunting knife counts as category D because it has a blade over 7cm but then so do my kitchen knifes so whatever....
Anyway the relevant point i was trying to make is the category C stuff. If you need more than 5 shots for whatever hunting you want to do (without a break inbetween to reload loose bullets from somewhere or to work a bolt action between every shot) I would really like to know what you are trying to do?
|
On June 15 2016 17:46 Velr wrote:
Arguing with Wegandi about regulation of basically anything... Well, you might as well try arguing with gravity once you realise that your parachute won't open.
Imho this whole ordeal is a cultural thing, many countries have pretty lax gunlaws and everyone that really wants to and doesn't have mental issues or a criminal history can own powerfull guns. Yet I don't know any other country where so many people are so obsessed and proud about owning weapons like the US.
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
You're a hoot. I'm not against all "regulation". I support free-market environmentalism for instance. As long as regulations are in accordance with Lockean rights I'm all aboard. In fact, my stance on this issue is so strict that it would probably put a lot of polluting businesses out of business (of course this comes with the caveat that waterways should be privately held and operated, but that's tangential I suppose). We can have an argument about how often and how stringently the courts would uphold strict nuisance laws, which is all well and dandy if you want :p
Now, of course I'm against a registry. It's a right. Right's don't come with asterisks. Also, a lot of people still believe in the right of self-defense and the original intent of the 2A. If it feels comforting to make yourself warm and fuzzy by acting superior, than sure, blame it on Machismo or whatever else you need to.
How about you go ask JFPO about their cowboy machismo culture of supporting the 2A. Here's their contact information: jpfo.org
|
That website is satire, isn't it?
|
On June 15 2016 17:46 Velr wrote:
Arguing with Wegandi about regulation of basically anything... Well, you might as well try arguing with gravity once you realise that your parachute won't open.
Imho this whole ordeal is a cultural thing, many countries have pretty lax gunlaws and everyone that really wants to and doesn't have mental issues or a criminal history can own powerfull guns. Yet I don't know any other country where so many people are so obsessed and proud about owning weapons like the US.
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
I don't know, I think that I find your own objections to be rather lackluster, to the point of it being "ridiculous".
Pest control is a pretty valid reason for owning firearms in the USA, believe it or not they're going to be military grade because there are wild animals out there which are a lot more resilient than humans.
The problem is that many Europeans think that you need to have a "necessary reason" in order to own a firearm. That's complete bollocks. You have literally hundreds of thousands of Europeans who die due to alcohol abuse every year: overdose, domestic abuse, alcohol induced violence, health issues, drunk driving, etc.
There is no "necessary reason" which would ever justify 200k alcohol-related deaths in Europe every single year. "Drinking is fun and drinking is safe if you're careful" is about the only viable reason to consume alcohol in the first place, but I can say the exact same thing about firearms.
For some reason if a woman is beaten to death by her alcohol and abusive husband, we're able to write it off as "well, he just abused alcohol, the rest of us people who drink are fine". If literally thousands of people die on the road due to drunk driving, we're OK with drinking anyway ("I don't drink and drive, so I'm fine!").
We completely downplay the fact that drinking being legal means that many are going to abuse it and it costs lives. Abusing alcohol puts not only the consumer at risk, but also the people in their entourage.
We're OK with all that! But GOD FORBID someone dies in a mass shooting. 200k+ alcohol related deaths in Europe is OK, but 10k firearm-related homicides in the USA is the end of the civilized world.
Moral of the story, you don't need a "reason" to own a firearm and use it. You need to go through some pretty intense mental gymnastics to get around to not being OK with firearms but also being OK with drugs, alcohol, tobacco and the plethora of other dangerous past times which people have.
It's nice to rage about how barbaric the 'MURRICANS are for liking their guns and FREEDOM (hurr durr), but if you look past that you realize that European societies are more than fine accepting hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related death, if it means accepting their beer and FREEDOM:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-country/
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/alcohol_factsheet_en.pdf
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/98806/E87347.pdf
|
On June 15 2016 17:46 Velr wrote:
Arguing with Wegandi about regulation of basically anything... Well, you might as well try arguing with gravity once you realise that your parachute won't open.
Imho this whole ordeal is a cultural thing, many countries have pretty lax gunlaws and everyone that really wants to and doesn't have mental issues or a criminal history can own powerfull guns. Yet I don't know any other country where so many people are so obsessed and proud about owning weapons like the US.
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
I think you are right , the amount of rubbish that gets spread here is crazy .... blaming everyone else but guns , muslims , terrorists , whatever..... as the video above pointed out , when 9/11 happened air regulations changed , they didn't say "hey its terrorism , its not the planes fault" , they made the connection that Planes are abusable by terrorists and tried to fix it , the same as the "guns for" all policy in america is exploitable by terrorists / criminals and crazy ppl and its the US responsibility to try and fix this.
deer hunting ..... give me a break .... fucking dear hunting is the reason to keep this status quo....
|
On June 15 2016 18:05 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 17:46 Velr wrote:
Arguing with Wegandi about regulation of basically anything... Well, you might as well try arguing with gravity once you realise that your parachute won't open.
Imho this whole ordeal is a cultural thing, many countries have pretty lax gunlaws and everyone that really wants to and doesn't have mental issues or a criminal history can own powerfull guns. Yet I don't know any other country where so many people are so obsessed and proud about owning weapons like the US.
The only Argument that really holds up is FREEDOM (if you want to call this an argument), everything else falls flat on his face.
If the gun ownership in the US would have anything to do with hunting, there wouldn't be any deer left (and you wouldn't buy military weapons).
If it would have anything to do with self defense, people would want handguns instead of rifles (or Dogs, Alarm Systems and other stuff that actually works).
If it would be about sports shooting, there would be loads of specialised guns sold for this and you would lock them up at the firing range.
At least be honest, don't use tons of stupid excuses as for why owning a gun is necessary - which still doesn't adress the issue of why you are against a gun registry.
Its plain madness, someone here actually brought up pest control as an argument for owning military grade weapons. Don't you feel ridiculous yourself when you write shit like this?
This is about some weird Cowboy/Machismo culture, nothing else
I don't know, I think that I find your own objections to be rather lackluster, to the point of it being "ridiculous". Pest control is a pretty valid reason for owning firearms in the USA, believe it or not they're going to be military grade because there are wild animals out there which are a lot more resilient than humans. The problem is that many Europeans think that you need to have a "necessary reason" in order to own a firearm. That's complete bollocks. You have literally hundreds of thousands of Europeans who die due to alcohol abuse every year: overdose, domestic abuse, alcohol induced violence, health issues, drunk driving, etc. There is no "necessary reason" which would ever justify 200k alcohol-related deaths in Europe every single year. "Drinking is fun and drinking is safe if you're careful" is about the only viable reason to consume alcohol in the first place, but I can say the exact same thing about firearms. For some reason if a woman is beaten to death by her alcohol and abusive husband, we're able to write it off as "well, he just abused alcohol, the rest of us people who drink are fine". If literally thousands of people die on the road due to drunk driving, we're OK with drinking anyway ("I don't drink and drive, so I'm fine!"). We completely downplay the fact that drinking being legal means that many are going to abuse it and it costs lives. Abusing alcohol puts not only the consumer at risk, but also the people in their entourage. We're OK with all that! But GOD FORBID someone dies in a mass shooting. 200k+ alcohol related deaths in Europe is OK, but 10k firearm-related homicides in the USA is the end of the civilized world. Moral of the story, you don't need a "reason" to own a firearm and use it. You need to go through some pretty intense mental gymnastics to get around to not being OK with firearms but also being OK with drugs, alcohol, tobacco and the plethora of other dangerous past times which people have. It's nice to rage about how barbaric the 'MURRICANS are for liking their guns and FREEDOM (hurr durr), but if you look past that you realize that European societies are more than fine accepting hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related death, if it means accepting their beer and FREEDOM: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-country/http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/alcohol_factsheet_en.pdfhttp://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/98806/E87347.pdf
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend .
|
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that.
|
On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that.
There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out.
The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out?
On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend .
You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it.
|
On June 15 2016 18:37 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 18:30 Salazarz wrote:
@ Incognoto
So because alcohol is harmful, other stupid shit should be allowed as well? Where's the logic in that. There are double standards when it comes to what is "acceptable" and what isn't, I'm pointing that out. The arguments which are being used in this thread as reasons to ban (note, I said BAN not regulate) simply don't carry much weight. Where is the issue in pointing that out? Show nested quote +On June 15 2016 18:30 bluzi wrote:
You are pointing out a real problem (Alcohol) !!! why does it makes the gun problem OK ? because we have other problems in the world ? if you open a thread about smoking/drinking i will be right there saying you are CORRECT my friend . You might want to blanket ban alcohol, but I don't. I value free societies. Even if it means there are consequences to it.
The argument "Something else bad is happening, so we don't need to do anything about this bad thing we were just talking about" can be made about every single problem. It is a very weak argument and does not carry any weight, since there is not connection whatsoever between doing something about guns and doing something about alcohol.
Furthermore, you are automatically assuming that the other person you are talking to is actually for the status quo with regards to alcohol, when you have no reason to believe that is the case.
What you are doing is deflecting a discussion into a different direction, which does not lead to solutions. This is the thread to talk about guns, not about alcohol. Feel free to make a thread about alcohol, and i will discuss it with you there.
And i think a big problem here is that few people are actually talking about the same thing. I don't think anyone here actually wants to completely ban all guns in all circumstances. What i think people are talking about is european-style regulation, which is usually somewhere between what Tula describes the law is in Austria and what deacon.frost describes the law to be in the Czech republic.
The main idea is a change of attitude from the american "Guns are a holy eternal right which may not be infringed in any way whatsoever" to "guns are a privilege".
Think about regulation similar to cars. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a drivers license, you need to register it, and you need to buy insurance in case you hurt someone with it. Why is it so unreasonable to treat guns the same way? Have a gunners license, a central gun register and a need to buy insurance for them (The last one is not that important i guess)
|
You took my post a lttle wrong and wtf has alcohol to do with this.
My issues is simple. The arguments people bring up for guns, are factually disproven and don't even adress the issue that many people even oppose a simple registry, let alone a "gun license" on the grounds of bs-arguments/FREEDOM.
People should at least have the balls to say that their freedom to go out and just buy/use Semi-Autos is worth a daily mass shooting. I still would disagree, but at least that would be honest.
|
On June 15 2016 16:37 levelping wrote:
Thought I'd leave this here.
As someone outside the US, I live in a country where gun ownership is illegal. We do however have compulsory military service for two years and during that time I trained and shot an ar15. Ran obstacle courses with it, marched over night with it, cleaned and stripped that rifle.
And I'm just clueless as to why that kind of rifle is so easily available in the US. What sort of self defense requires that? Last I checked the US didn't have marauding bands of heavily armed outlaws.
Actually gun ownership is not illegal in SG, it is just very hard to get a gun license. You do however have to store firearms and ammo in a government authorised armoury or gun club.
And technically we don't use AR15 since some people on this forums are very fucking technical on gun terms that they approved of while ignoring all those that doesn't 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KV9naC1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JErUgl0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oXiNRQX.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oky8IU4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ju1l5m1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YrhfN9J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/h1NmnEh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/olmsFIO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qpZtpgs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3IM21jC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EGecHex.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VkMzAye.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gMDq6fJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TxYwf01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QDoiKC3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7m5W2q9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cMuqFcb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RHechRM.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bDez819.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yf4V0Ab.jpg)
