EPTThe market should be free: anyone who is sane, not disabled and have sufficient practice can buy a gun and nobody should ask where it's going to be kept and on which purpose would be used. .
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
The market should be free: anyone who is sane, not disabled and have sufficient practice can buy a gun and nobody should ask where it's going to be kept and on which purpose would be used. . | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45683 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:50 Wegandi wrote: There are all ready background checks and gun regulations. Am I living in the Twilight Zone or do people just intentionally misrepresent facts to suit their political agendas...hmmm... I'm not sure why you're replying to my statement with that statement, because I didn't say that there are zero background checks or regulations on guns. Did you mean to quote someone else? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:12 Salazarz wrote: Nowhere did I say that I want to blanket ban alcohol. It's certainly not a bad idea to regulate it, though. Just like guns should be regulated, except guns are far more likely to be deadly and abused with a purpose so it makes sense for regulations to be tighter. Purpose has nothing to do with it, a death is a death. If my sister dies, I'm not going to feel any better if she were killed by a drunk driver than if she were killed by a gangster drive-by. Death is death. If you take out the "with a purpose" part of your sentence, suddenly alcohol is much, much more dangerous than firearms, simply because so many more people use it, thus so many more people can abuse it. It's more dangerous than firearms at that point, because it's so readily available to people, because it's so ingrained in our culture to drink, etc.. So making out firearms to be worse than alcohol is imo, too much of a stretch. It would be nice to regulate alcohol but that is a pretty impossible notion. Prohibition, look it up. I otherwise agree that regulations would need to be much tighter in the USA. As of right now it is realistically too easy for a firearm (doesn't need to be "military" in order to be lethal) to fall into the wrong hands. Freedom and regulation aren't exclusive. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45683 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:51 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Guns regulation is bad. Because it makes sure only criminals, terrorists and the special departments have the weapons. For a huge world-leading country like USA it's honestly unacceptable, police is overpowered already. While police brutality and the prejudices found in the American criminal justice system are appalling and need to be recognized and changed, I don't think that that's an argument for having minimal gun control in this country. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While police brutality and the prejudices found in the American criminal justice system are appalling and need to be recognized and changed, I don't think that that's an argument for having minimal gun control in this country. There isn't a statistical argument for a gun control either. "Minimal" may sound good on paper (extra caution can't hurt), but it's essentially making a precedent which will be certainly abused in case. It's not like you can buy a military-grade weapon as simple as a semi-rifle and a pistol as it stands now, right? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm not sure why you're replying to my statement with that statement, because I didn't say that there are zero background checks or regulations on guns. Did you mean to quote someone else? If language was never contextual or implied you could get away with that, but we all know what you mean when you say majority of American's favor things that are all ready happening to make it seem like we have nothing on the books right now so that you can push even more stringent restrictions leading to the eventual ban of personal ownership of firearms. That's the agenda, and mission creep to get there is strong. Using false narratives via the few highly publicized shootings a year to "show" how bad it is, meanwhile thousands are killed in drug violence which pads the gun stats used to strip gun ownership. The majority of shootings/gun homicides are gang related/suicides and are committed with "illegal" weapons. Which is to point out that background checks have almost no effect on criminal use of weapons. No one brings it up because the goal isn't to reduce gun violence. It's to hand more power to the Government. If the goal was to reduce gun violence we'd legalize drugs running the gangs and cartels out of business just like we did with all the alcohol violence from prohibition. St. Valentines day massacre anyone? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:58 ForTehDarkseid wrote: There isn't a statistical argument for a gun control either. "Minimal" may sound good on paper (extra caution can't hurt), but it's essentially making a precedent which will be certainly abused in case. It's not like you can buy a military-grade weapon as simple as a semi-rifle and a pistol as it stands now, right? I really don't think that "military" is even an issue. Any semi-automatic weapon is a massacre machine. The AR-15 isn't a "military" weapon, it's not automatic, magazine capacity is limited. But that doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly efficient when it comes to killing lots of people very quickly. People aren't talking about making such weapons illegal either, people are talking about making such weapons stay in good hands. That's how it works with cars and aircraft... might as well be how it works with firearms really. You don't see pilots complaining about air traffic control, do you? "aw fuck these guys, i want to fly now, screw the rules". Maybe because there isn't an amendment in the consitution which protects pilots from ATC. <_< Weggy wrote: No one brings it up because the goal isn't to reduce gun violence. It's to hand more power to the Government. Oh come off it, where's your tin foil hat? Do you think that Omar should have really been allowed to obtain a firearm so easily? He just walked into a store and purchased his guns, no questions asked. Didn't even matter that he was on the FBI's watch list. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45683 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:58 ForTehDarkseid wrote: There isn't a statistical argument for a gun control either. Well the tens of thousands of deaths each year sound like a pretty useful statistic to me, but it would definitely be nice if gun violence were allowed to be legally researched by the CDC to the extent that it should be. "Minimal" may sound good on paper (extra caution can't hurt), but it's essentially making a precedent which will be certainly abused in case. It's not like you can buy a military-grade weapon as simple as a semi-rifle and a pistol as it stands now, right? I'd argue that precedents with guns are already being abused every day because people are killing themselves and others with them. And if it comes down to needing to choose to *hypothetically* give the occasional gun owner a rough time in buying his fifth gun for his collection at the expense of saving thousands of lives, I think that's permissible, realistic, and quite frankly a heck of a lot more responsible governing than what happens now. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22283 Posts
On June 15 2016 20:51 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Guns regulation is bad. Because it makes sure only criminals, terrorists and the special departments have the weapons. For a huge world-leading country like USA it's honestly unacceptable, the police is overpowered already. The market should be free: anyone who is sane, not disabled and have sufficient practice can buy a gun and nobody should ask where it's going to be kept and on which purpose would be used. . The rest of the world seems to be doing rather fine without a gun in every hand yet somehow only America would be lost without them. I once again feel compelled to copy a statement once made in satire that has been proven painfully true. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:17 Gorsameth wrote: I once again feel compelled to copy a statement once made in satire that has been proven painfully true. Painfully true? Sorry, but to me that is painfully FALSE. Just look at France, Belgium, Tunisia, etc. It's a very regular occurence. There are some valid arguments to be made but honestly posting that sort of thing is really just detracting to the discussion at hand. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
Gun (and life) security has nothing to do with a gun regulation. Infact, if you restrict guns, it will only become worse. When it comes to mass shootings, people are suddenly become tunnel-visioned, forgetting the old wisdom: it's not on a weapon, but on a shooter instead. If he plans to kill a lot of people and is skilledo or/and determined for this, he would find a way to a black market, or, you know, would use another device for the murder, because he is a criminal. Free gun market is created not for criminals, but for regular citizens as a mean to defend themselves from the criminals and other dangers. There's a mile of difference between USA and Europian countries at that point, simply put, if the police security was enough, maybe you'd had an arguement. But when it comes to a hostage situation, roughly 8x more civilians die when the case is handled officially compared to the events where guns are used for self-defense. It makes a huge difference, and mass shootings can't change it statistically. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22283 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:22 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @Incognoto Gun (and life) security has nothing to do with a gun regulation. Infact, if you restrict guns, it will only become worse. When it comes to mass shootings, people are suddenly become tunnel-visioned, forgetting the old wisdom: it's not on a weapon, but on a shooter instead. If he plans to kill a lot of people and is skilled/determined for it, he would find a way to a black market, or you know would use another device for murder, because he is essentially a criminal. Free gun market is created not for criminals, but for regular citizens as a mean to defend themselves. So why is the rest of the world not drowning in mass shootings? Why is it only America? | ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:21 Incognoto wrote: Painfully true? Sorry, but to me that is painfully FALSE. Just look at France, Belgium, Tunisia, etc. It's a very regular occurence. There are some valid arguments to be made but honestly posting that sort of thing is really just detracting to the discussion at hand. and by regular occurence you mean terrorist attacks that happened in the last 2 years | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22283 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:21 Incognoto wrote: Painfully true? Sorry, but to me that is painfully FALSE. Just look at France, Belgium, Tunisia, etc. It's a very regular occurence. There are some valid arguments to be made but honestly posting that sort of thing is really just detracting to the discussion at hand. Your comparing a small number of terrorist attacks to a country that has almost as many shooting events as it has days in the year. 136 events in which 4 or more people were injured or killed by guns in 164 days CNN Source And your telling me they are equivocal? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:22 ForTehDarkseid wrote: @Incognoto Gun (and life) security has nothing to do with a gun regulation. Infact, if you restrict guns, it will only become worse. When it comes to mass shootings, people are suddenly become tunnel-visioned, forgetting the old wisdom: it's not on a weapon, but on a shooter instead. If he plans to kill a lot of people and is skilled/determined for it, he would find a way to a black market, or you know would use another device for murder, because he is essentially a criminal. Free gun market is created not for criminals, but for regular citizens as a mean to defend themselves. That's bollocks, the free gun market exists for regular citizens as a means to obtain a gun. What about people who don't choose to buy firearms to defend themselves? The idea behind gun regulation is that it reduces the ease of access to malicious people in the first place. Our good friend Omar went into a gun store and purchaused two semi-automatic weapons three days before his attack. It's too easy to obtain these weapons for isolated people with malicious intent. Do you think that people should be allowed to drink and drive? It's their right!! It's their life, they get to do what they want. "Fuck seatbelts, you can't tell me what to do"? Organized crime is indeed going to have access to the black market, the idea behind regulation is to prevent that one guy, without all the shady contacts, to just go into a gun shop and buy a semi-auto weapon because he was in the mood for a nice mass shooting. That is waay too easy. No meaningful background checks, no licences, no ability whatsoever to check that this person is worthy to be trusted with a firearm. You don't even get that degree of leniency with cars.. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:24 Gorsameth wrote: So why is the rest of the world not drowning in mass shootings? Why is it only America? Are you really that ignorant of the rest of the world? Here, welcome to South America and Africa, have a look around if you want. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
Way to hit rockbottom. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:29 Gorsameth wrote: Your comparing a small number of terrorist attacks to a country that has almost as many shooting events as it has days in the year. 136 events in which 4 or more people were injured or killed by guns in 164 days CNN Source And your telling me they are equivocal? Which has mostly nothing to do with firearms. The majority of "mass shootings" occur between gangs. The Government used prohibition to strip Americans from owning automatic weapons and they're using drug prohibition to do the same thing now (semi's). How about we end drug prohibition so we can reduce those statistics by more than 80%. Sound good? That way we won't have to trample on the rights of the innocent to get the desired result if that is your true motivation. | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:32 Wegandi wrote: Are you really that ignorant of the rest of the world? Here, welcome to South America and Africa, have a look around if you want. And if we point out that America's peer group is the OECD or even just a subset of that you are going to accuse us of Eurocentrism again? Of course we are not going to compare the US with countries with barely functioning societies. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 15 2016 21:36 zatic wrote: And if we point out that America's peer group is the OECD or even just a subset of that you are going to accuse us of Eurocentrism again? Of course we are not going to compare the US with countries with barely functioning societies. So by rest of the world you mean Europe. Yeah, no Euro-centrism there. | ||
| ||
