| 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. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
The real debate is just a balancing act between personal liberty and the interest of public safety. I think the majority of gun rights advocates would oppose shit like civilians owning heavy machine guns because it's very much contrary to public safety and for most people there's barely any loss to personal freedom. But again, gun rights people don't like that conversation because if we argue about whether or not guns are even dangerous we never get to the next argument. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9246 Posts
Percentage of firearm homicides of total homicide rate US: 87.9% Australia: 16% UK: 6% Would a significant part of that 88% use illegally obtained guns or find other means to kill? Absolutely. But would all of them? | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old Actually most of the Magna Carta has been repealed because a lot of it had to do with currently irrelevant things like royal forests and what to do if you die and still owe money to a Jew (seriously). I think it's down to 3 of the original 63? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 05:40 Falling wrote: Actually most of the Magna Carta has been repealed because a lot of it had to do with currently irrelevant things like royal forests and what do to if you die and still owe money to a Jew (seriously). I think it's down to 3 of the original 63? Wasn't the Magna Carta also initially like an interface between the kings and their land owners and the peasantry was just not included and didn't matter? Like it's a feudal thing that's been reinterpreted pretty heavily. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 09 2016 03:13 Reaps wrote: What do you mean it has done absolutely nothing? You think we have problems with gun crime here in the UK? Regardless of stepping up the police force as you stated, there is simply very little ways of getting guns over here, if people want to commit attacks, they have to settle for other means which very often means less deaths. If people stab each other with knives, everything is nice. But if they do it with a gun, they're savages. Logic? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html If you want people to take you seriously, stop pretending like Europe is the last bastion of the civilized world. I would also hate to live in the UK or Australia. Any government which outright bans firearms is just ridiculous. As we've seen with Brexit, whatever the UK government does these days is probably the wrong call. Your entire government is silly and incompetent. The same can be said about Australia really where you have institutionalized rape in the navy ( link ). This is a bit off topic but what I really want to underline is that the UK or Australia are hardly countries which you want to take after, like, AT ALL. It also really gets my goat that people keep pretending that their country is more civilized than the USA. Stop that, please. Gun control, yes. Bans? How about let's not, yes? Let's let people live freely, as long as they don't bother other people, yes? Does that make sense to you? Most gun owners in America are not a problem, so let's not penalize them, if that's OK. Most people, in this thread even, are for proper regulation. They aren't for banning firearms and frankly any nation which does that is, in my eyes, a place where I'd not like to live. Living in a neighborhood full of people that you know would kill you if only they could get their hands on a gun is hardly nice. At least when you live in the USA, you have 10 neighbors all armed with shotguns but you feel safe because you know they're nice people. :/ | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:09 farvacola wrote: Shh Falling and djzapz, you're getting in the way of a convenient point. I take no credit, I let it slip  | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:10 Incognoto wrote: If people stab each other with knives, everything is nice. But if they do it with a gun, they're savages. Logic? Yes because that is what i said, actually no, i didn't and you know i didn't. Stop creating made up shitty positions to argue your own bias. The point i made is really fucking simple, if someone wants to commit a violent crime and they do not have access to a gun, they will be forced to use as you said a knife. Now i'll use an example instead of pointing out the difference between a firearm and a knife which obviously went over your head the first time. Remember the Batman cinema shooting? James Holmes killed 12 and injured 70. Well the very same day there was a similar attack in China i believe, the attacker/s had only a knife and attacked a similar amount of people. Guess how many people died? 0 And you question my logic when you cant understand my point which was oh so simple. As for my silly and incompetent government i feel much safer here then i would where you are any day. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:23 Reaps wrote: Yes because that is what i said, actually no, i didn't and you know i didn't. Stop creating made up shitty positions to argue your own bias. The point i made is really fucking simple, if someone wants to commit a violent crime and they do not have access to a gun, they will be forced to use as you said a knife. Now i'll use an example instead of pointing out the difference between a firearm and a knife which obviously went over your head the first time. Remember the Batman cinema shooting? James Holmes killed 12 and injured 70. Well the very same day there was a similar attack in China i believe, the attacker/s had only a knife and attacked a similar amount of people. Guess how many people died? 0 And you question my logic when you cant understand my point which was oh so simple. Way to pick out a single line of my post and completely ignore the rest of it. If you don't want to discuss this topic why are you even here? I'll make it simple for you. Are you really advocating the complete and total banning of firearms? If yes, then I completely disagree with you, for the aforementioned arguments which you completely ignored. There is no reason whatsoever to penalize legal, law-abiding citizens from owning firearms, given that they aren't being a problem in the first place. Only fascists would advocate penalizing many, for the dishonest actions of few, in the name of "security". That's what Russia does (and, I guess the UK and Australia as well). Honestly, those aren't my values and I'm very glad that France at very least regulates firearms but does not outright ban them. If no, then we aren't even disagreeing in the first place, why are your panties in such a bunch? | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:37 Incognoto wrote: Way to pick out a single line of my post and completely ignore the rest of it. If you don't want to discuss this topic why are you even here? I'll make it simple for you. Are you really advocating the complete and total banning of firearms? If yes, then I completely disagree with you, for the aforementioned arguments which you completely ignored. There is no reason whatsoever to penalize legal, law-abiding citizens from owning firearms, given that they aren't being a problem in the first place. Only fascists would advocate penalizing many, for the dishonest actions of few, in the name of "security". That's what Russia does (and, I guess the UK and Australia as well). Honestly, those aren't my values and I'm very glad that France at very least regulates firearms but does not outright ban them. If no, then we aren't even disagreeing in the first place, why are your panties in such a bunch? I never even mentioned a total ban of firearms, so how am i advocating that i will never know, i was simply replying to the other guy that mentioned the UK's ban which obviously worked for the Brits (never mentioned it will everywhere) I ignored rest of your post because there was nothing there apart from shit talking about UK's and the Aussies government. I don't believe it will work in the USA for example, however probably for different reasons than most. Maybe next time don't reply to people unless you're absolutely sure where they stand on the issue, or you know ask politely and they will tell you. Yet its me who apparently has my panties in a bunch. :/ | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:37 Incognoto wrote: Way to pick out a single line of my post and completely ignore the rest of it. If you don't want to discuss this topic why are you even here? I'll make it simple for you. Are you really advocating the complete and total banning of firearms? If yes, then I completely disagree with you, for the aforementioned arguments which you completely ignored. There is no reason whatsoever to penalize legal, law-abiding citizens from owning firearms, given that they aren't being a problem in the first place. Only fascists would advocate penalizing many, for the dishonest actions of few, in the name of "security". That's what Russia does (and, I guess the UK and Australia as well). Honestly, those aren't my values and I'm very glad that France at very least regulates firearms but does not outright ban them. If no, then we aren't even disagreeing in the first place, why are your panties in such a bunch? I fundamentally disagree with your position because I don't believe that being unable to own a firearm is a punishment or a penalty but a blessing. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6500 Posts
On July 09 2016 05:17 Dan HH wrote: Another fun stat: Percentage of firearm homicides of total homicide rate US: 87.9% Australia: 16% UK: 6% Would a significant part of that 88% use illegally obtained guns or find other means to kill? Absolutely. But would all of them? What's the context of this hypothetical, if God magically vacuumed all the legal guns? On July 09 2016 05:02 Dan HH wrote: I think Argentina is the only country in the Very High HDI category with higher homicide rate than US. And there is no country in the Very High Inequality-adjusted HDI category with a higher homicide rate than the US. But if you wanna compare yourself to 'wealthy' Mexico and other countries to which the US has a massive education/poverty rate/corruption index advantage, go ahead. Okay, I will continue to do that. So I looked up the HDI metric, which records life expectancy, education, and income (life expectancy, by the way, is not independent from homicide rates - in a country where everyone is getting murdered, that will decrease): 27 United States 0.760 38 Russia 0.714 39 Argentina 0.711 So right off the bat, there are 26 countries ahead of the US, and they're all countries with lower homicide rates, the usual group of countries like Finland where people try to tell the US to get its shit together and be more like them. And you take away an extra 0.05 from the index and end up with countries with homicide over 2x worse. That's interesting. Down the list, there are countries doing even better than the US, including India and China, with lower indices. How did these countries get so peaceful without being part of the esteemed first world? An index is an average of the whole country. It doesn't tell you how the variable is distributed in reality. The fire index of a community of 200 homes is almost the same as the fire index of a community of 200 homes where one of them is engulfed in a conflagration. If 911 went by that number, they'd never realize what was going on and send fire trucks because of statistical illiteracy. On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote: Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. Yes, it's high compared to countries where it's lower (in other words, "developed" countries excluding countries that buck the trend, like Mexico and so on), but not high in an absolute sense. And violent crime and homicide have been dropping for two decades. So there's not cause for alarmism. On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote: But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. You believe there are many factors at work in these issues, okay, but then I don't follow your charge of muddying. On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote: But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality. You shouldn't need a singular excuse to address poverty, it's bad for all kinds of reasons. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9246 Posts
On July 09 2016 07:49 oBlade wrote: What's the context of this hypothetical, if God magically vacuumed all the legal guns? The context is a discussion on the previous page about how 'it's proven that bans do absolutely nothing'. I don't personally think that a ban is realistic option for the US. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 07:49 oBlade wrote: Yes, it's high compared to countries where it's lower (in other words, "developed" countries excluding countries that buck the trend, like Mexico and so on), but not high in an absolute sense. And violent crime and homicide have been dropping for two decades. So there's not cause for alarmism. There's hardly any need for alarmism ever, I mean we should only get alarmed when an issue threatens to wipe out humankind of end live as we know it, and there's only 2-3 issues that do that. Gun ownership in the US does that. I don't think my position is an alarmist one. I happen to believe that some gun control can be worthwhile. Your firearm related death rate is 5.2x that of Canada, your immediate neighbor. The countries at the top of that list really are countries with problems. There are no Euros anywhere near the top. It's not the end of the world, I agree. It's not trivial either. On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote: You shouldn't need a singular excuse to address poverty, it's bad for all kinds of reasons. I'm well aware, and yet the US doesn't address it very well at all. And now we have all kinds of poor people feeling like they have the short end of the stick so they act out, extremely predictably. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 07:49 oBlade wrote: Yes, it's high compared to countries where it's lower (in other words, "developed" countries excluding countries that buck the trend, like Mexico and so on), but not high in an absolute sense. And violent crime and homicide have been dropping for two decades. So there's not cause for alarmism. There's hardly any need for alarmism ever, I mean we should only get alarmed when an issue threatens to wipe out humankind of end live as we know it, and there's only 2-3 issues that do that. Gun ownership in the US does that. I don't think my position is an alarmist one. I happen to believe that some gun control can be worthwhile. Your firearm related death rate is 5.2x that of Canada, your immediate neighbor. The countries at the top of that list really are countries with problems. There are no Euros anywhere near the top. It's not the end of the world, I agree. It's not trivial either. On July 09 2016 04:41 oBlade wrote: You shouldn't need a singular excuse to address poverty, it's bad for all kinds of reasons. I'm well aware, and yet the US doesn't address it very well at all. And now we have all kinds of poor people feeling like they have the short end of the stick so they act out, extremely predictably. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
this is one of the reasons why it's difficult to facilitate any proper discussion, because most people are armchair activists who only care when it's convenient to (similar to the recent police shootings). for rifle related deaths please refer to the link below and tell me again how awfully important gun control is in reducing deaths in the country. if any argument should be made it should be to more heavily regulate hand guns, but handguns aren't as scary to the general populous because.... because: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On July 09 2016 05:06 overt wrote: The debate over whether guns cause more gun homicide rates is so pointless to begin with. Even if there was insurmountable evidence that more gun regulation meant less deaths gun rights advocates would still oppose stricter regulation, they just don't want to have the real debate because it's easier to pretend like gun laws don't do anything. The real debate is just a balancing act between personal liberty and the interest of public safety. I think the majority of gun rights advocates would oppose shit like civilians owning heavy machine guns because it's very much contrary to public safety and for most people there's barely any loss to personal freedom. But again, gun rights people don't like that conversation because if we argue about whether or not guns are even dangerous we never get to the next argument. if you prevent anyone from doing anything it will likely result in less deaths. you can go after alcohol / tobacco and the net amount of lives you save will be several times larger than if you were to tighten gun regulations. the problem is most people (even you are suggesting) that any amount of deaths is a moral absolute and we should avoid it at all costs ONLY when talking about firearms. do you see the problem with this? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On July 09 2016 06:47 Jockmcplop wrote: I fundamentally disagree with your position because I don't believe that being unable to own a firearm is a punishment or a penalty but a blessing. This doesn't even make sense. If I live in a neighborhood with very low risk of any type of random gun violence, legally own a gun that I properly take care of, and my hobby is to use it safely, then it wouldn't really be a blessing to me for you to ban my ability to possess and use the gun. You may have no interest in the hobby but to say it would be a blessing for the hobby to be taken away from others just is nonsensical. If you are trying to say the act of banning the gun reduced the homicide rate in other neighborhoods and it's a blessing to those folks then I could at least understand that but that's not really what you said. I'm okay with a ban on recreational athletic leagues because I don't think being unable to participate in recreational athletic activities is a punishment or a penalty but a blessing. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On July 09 2016 10:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Partly because the major loophole is the states around California don't have the same laws regarding ammo sales and background checks etc. i was referring mostly to the redefinition of what constitutes a fixed magazine and the requirement to register bullet buttoned weapons as assault weapons and losing a large amount of rights in the process. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs EffOrt
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
