|
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. |
@Mosoball
I don't fully agree.
It's not because you have to consider other people around you, that you cannot be completely free as well.
It's not because you see complete freedom based on a vacuum, that it can't hold up in a non-vacuum.
Freedom for me is a pretty basic concept: do what you want, just don't impede other people's freedoms (aka, don't steal, kill, rape, etc). Ofcourse the whole situation becomes more complex the more complex society becomes. Is being relatively quiet at night because some people go to sleep earlier than you an prohibition, especially when you're a loud party animal?
The world would be so much more logical if people would live according to their fundamental preferences.
Hedonismland, The Christian State, Nation Of Islam, Nihilism Island, The Communistic Plateau, ...
In your last parahraph, I do also think it's just that. Guns are good fun, so why would people need to pay the ultimate price for just some lunatics? There's not debates about needing to enforce stricter vehicle licenses/permissions just because this guy ran over a bunch of people in Nice, right?
@Everyone
The car analogy is still, for me, the strongest argument as to why guns should be regulated more strictly. I haven't seen anyone come with a counterargument yet for this. Yes, the fundamental use for guns and cars are different, still guns and cars can be used as mass killing tools. Make it you need to: 1- have to go through rigorous training before you get a license; 2- mental assessment of the person who is wants to carry/own; 3- and this is analogous to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test, however I could argue this should be for the equipment, but for the person handling the equipment, so mental checkups every x years, for as long this person decides to carry a gun (let's say every 3 years).
Is this a complete restriction of the ability to own and carry firearms? Absolutely not.
Is this a stronger regulation of what we how now? Absolutely.
What do you say about my proposal?
|
On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way.
Exactly. If the average person has the intention to kill or massacre, he will do so with or without a firearm. But it sure as hell is way more difficult without one. It doesn't mean to there will no longer be any mass killings or random murders, but you remove the easiest and most common way for one to do so.
In the ideal world, we'd focus on reducing the number of people with such killing intentions. Realistically, this won't be achieved. A pragmatic solution is simply stricter gun control. You don't even need a blanket ban on firearms. Just more regulations for a start.
|
On July 19 2016 18:42 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
good example. im sure guns would have changed the outcome.
just a friendly reminder: this thread is mainly used to discuss shootings that occur in a country that has lax guns laws
Lol when did you decide that?
That guy pointed out that guns are something which are a threat even with stringet gun laws. You can't forcefully ignore something that doesn't agree with you.
Where else are we supposed to draw comparaisons from? Clearly firearms aren't a problem if they're regulated.
On July 19 2016 20:41 DucK- wrote:just more regulations for a start.
Why "for a start"? What is your ideal society, one where everyone does the exact same thing which is government approved? Get off it.
Proper regulation is all that's needed, period. You don't need to go beyond that.
|
On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way.
The 17 year old refugee? Yeah i heard about it.
Even in the USA though federal law forbids anyone under 21 purchasing a gun.
I'm sure if he wanted to obtain a gun illegally he could have easily.Drugs are illegal and they are readily available.Deep web and internet in general make illegal items far easier to obtain than 20 years ago - drugs, weapons, whatever you want.Pay bitcoin.Totally untraceable.You can even 3D print firearms now that will shoot a few bullets.Video online see for yourself.
All you are doing with these gun bans is reducing the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves and their families.
|
On July 19 2016 20:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way. The 17 year old refugee? Yeah i heard about it. Even in the USA though federal law forbids anyone under 21 purchasing a gun. I'm sure if he wanted to obtain a gun illegally he could have easily.Drugs are illegal and they are readily available.Deep web and internet in general make illegal items far easier to obtain than 20 years ago - drugs, weapons, whatever you want.Pay bitcoin.Totally untraceable.You can even 3D print firearms now that will shoot a few bullets.Video online see for yourself. All you are doing with these gun bans is reducing the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves and their families.
From what i gather in the US, if you want a gun illegally, you can get one at every street corner, because guns are so common everywhere, which in turn of cause also means that illegal guns are very common everywhere.
It is not easy to get a gun illegally in Germany. This is something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The black market is linked to the legal market. If the legal market is full of guns, and anyone can take a gun from the legal to the black market, since there is no registry, your black market will also be gigantic. If there are fewer legal guns, those are harder to get, and it is even harder to take a gun from the legal market to the black market, your black market is smaller. That means that a) It is harder to find black market guns, as there are less and it is more dangerous for the seller to offer one, b) The guns that are on the black market are more expensive.
This means that no, if you want to obtain a gun illegally, you could not "do so easily".
If i wanted to have a gun right now, i wouldn't have the slightest idea where to even start looking. I guess i could ask some biker-type guys around a Bordello or something, but i don't think that would be very effective.
So if i were to suddenly have the idea to start a murder spree, i simply wouldn't get a gun. I am pretty sure it is like this for a lot of people.
Meanwhile, in the US, i would just start asking random people where i can get a gun around here, or google "Gun shop city", and have one slightly thereafter.
This is the difference. It is harder to get a gun here. The black market is not obvious nor easy to find if you don't have connections. That means that fewer potential criminals have guns. Which means that some of the either think about their killing spree, or have to go kill people with a knife instead, which ends in a lot fewer deaths.
It is never about preventing every single gun crime, it is about reducing the availability of guns and thus reducing the lethality of a lot of crimes simply because the effort to get a gun was too high for the criminal to go through with it. And it works like a charm.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On July 19 2016 20:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way. The 17 year old refugee? Yeah i heard about it. Even in the USA though federal law forbids anyone under 21 purchasing a gun. I'm sure if he wanted to obtain a gun illegally he could have easily.Drugs are illegal and they are readily available.Deep web and internet in general make illegal items far easier to obtain than 20 years ago - drugs, weapons, whatever you want.Pay bitcoin.Totally untraceable.You can even 3D print firearms now that will shoot a few bullets.Video online see for yourself. All you are doing with these gun bans is reducing the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves and their families.
We don't ban guns. We actually have quite a lot compared to other OECD countries. We do have reasonable gun control laws though, which prevent crazies like the one yesterday from obtaining one.
And no, you cannot just buy illegal guns as easily as you can buy drugs.
|
First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it.
So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why.
|
On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it. So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why.
I have actually heard about a story (on a youtube podcast that covers various media coverages, The Drunken Peasants if you're wondering, highly entertaining if you want some mindless shit blasting in your ears (and sometimes clips)) where someone did prevent a (probably escalating) situation by shooting someone who had a gun. So it does happen, albeit very, very rarely.
|
On July 19 2016 21:29 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it. So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why. I have actually heard about a story (a youtube podcast that covers various media coverages, The Drunken Peasants if you're wondering, highly entertaining if you want some mindless shit blasting in your ears (and sometimes clips)) where someone did prevent a (probably escalating) situation by shooting someone who had a gun. So it does happen, albeit very, very rarely.
Exactly, I doubt there are many more similar stories.
|
There are some US stats on how the presence of civilian owned firearms actually increases the chance of violent escalation, I'll have to see if I can find them.
|
On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:
First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it.
So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why.
Lol what? Are you really saying that a ‘kitchen knife’ is more useful than a gun for self defence? It makes no sense dude (unless you can’t aim for shit). Do you realize how hard it is to fight someone 1v1 with a knife….? It takes balls. On the other hand, if you learn to aim properly, you can easily neutralize anyone (and it does not require physical strength). Defending yourself with a knife or a baseball bat does. That being said, i’m not even in favor of gun access lol. Mainly because It does more harm than good overall. But well, im canadian so I don’t have to worry about self defence, I’m from a small town where people leave their doors open and the keys in the car lol.. People here don’t fight, they just hug each other.
|
On July 19 2016 20:51 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:42 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
good example. im sure guns would have changed the outcome.
just a friendly reminder: this thread is mainly used to discuss shootings that occur in a country that has lax guns laws Lol when did you decide that? That guy pointed out that guns are something which are a threat even with stringet gun laws. You can't forcefully ignore something that doesn't agree with you. Where else are we supposed to draw comparaisons from? Clearly firearms aren't a problem if they're regulated. Why "for a start"? What is your ideal society, one where everyone does the exact same thing which is government approved? Get off it. Proper regulation is all that's needed, period. You don't need to go beyond that.
Given the turtle like progress in implementing stricter regulations despite countless of massacres, 'for a start' means exactly what it is. Proper regulation is needed, but I dare say 5 years later there still won't be much done.
|
On July 19 2016 21:56 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:
First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it.
So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why. Lol what? Are you really saying that a ‘kitchen knife’ is more useful than a gun for self defence? It makes no sense dude (unless you can’t aim for shit). Do you realize how hard it is to fight someone 1v1 with a knife….? It takes balls. On the other hand, if you learn to aim properly, you can easily neutralize anyone (and it does not require physical strength). Defending yourself with a knife or a baseball bat does. That being said, i’m not even in favor of gun access lol. Mainly because It does more harm than good overall. But well, im canadian so I don’t have to worry about self defence, I’m from a small town where people leave their doors open and the keys in the car lol.. People here don’t fight, they just hug each other.
I agree with that, you misunderstood me. My point is that a gun might as well be as useless as a knife in a true life or death situation; but due to the preparations required to fire a gun that thye probably don't have much practice for that's just sitting unused most of the time in your home and the nervousness the person will feel due to them being in a situation as dire as one that apparently requires their use of a firearm, they might as well be holding a kitchen knife for all the good it will do.
Obviously, a gun will help you more if you get a chance to use it and know your way around it, was trying to illustrate my point.
|
On July 19 2016 21:56 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:
First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it.
So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why. Lol what? Are you really saying that a ‘kitchen knife’ is more useful than a gun for self defence? It makes no sense dude (unless you can’t aim for shit). Do you realize how hard it is to fight someone 1v1 with a knife….? It takes balls. On the other hand, if you learn to aim properly, you can easily neutralize anyone (and it does not require physical strength). Defending yourself with a knife or a baseball bat does. That being said, i’m not even in favor of gun access lol. Mainly because It does more harm than good overall. But well, im canadian so I don’t have to worry about self defence, I’m from a small town where people leave their doors open and the keys in the car lol.. People here don’t fight, they just hug each other.
I think he means that if you take the appropriate safety precautions for your gun, that means your gun is locked in a gun safe, with the ammo separately locked in a safe at another place. If someone is in your house, this makes it practically impossible to retrieve and use the gun, because you would have to pass that person multiple times while unlocking safes.
|
On July 19 2016 19:44 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 10:30 dontforgetosmile wrote:according to some people in this thread prohibition is a-ok! to paraphrase (since i don't remember) one of the sky news reporters during the turkey coup "if you don't have the guns, you don't have the power". it's a simple truth that people can't skirt around. being armed is an essential hedge against coercion. if you want to volunteer your own rights that's fine, but i'd prefer to keep mine  Coercion from who? From the state? Do you really think assault rifles will do shit in a modern warfare? If you want to protect yourself against coercion, you need the right to have tanks and jet fighters in this case.
this is an extremely naive viewpoint. if this make so much sense to you, you should let all the heads of military know that they no longer need infantry or small arms. it'll save them tons of money.
Coercion from an individual? He will have a gun too, I don't see in which case being armed give you any hedge in our Western societies.
how is that not a hedge? would you rather be unarmed?
On July 19 2016 20:19 Uldridge wrote:@Everyone The car analogy is still, for me, the strongest argument as to why guns should be regulated more strictly. I haven't seen anyone come with a counterargument yet for this. Yes, the fundamental use for guns and cars are different, still guns and cars can be used as mass killing tools. Make it you need to: 1- have to go through rigorous training before you get a license; 2- mental assessment of the person who is wants to carry/own; 3- and this is analogous to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test, however I could argue this should be for the equipment, but for the person handling the equipment, so mental checkups every x years, for as long this person decides to carry a gun (let's say every 3 years). Is this a complete restriction of the ability to own and carry firearms? Absolutely not. Is this a stronger regulation of what we how now? Absolutely. What do you say about my proposal?
it sounds great. let's see you pass a bill through congress that trains citizens to be proficient with guns (aka efficient killers) i'm sure that'll get lots of support.
if this concession is made, how does that change the last 3 or so big shootings, all of whom had no medically prescribed mental issues and obtained their firearms legally? what happens when shootings continue to happen after that?
just remember that through all this effort only about 20,000 gun deaths occur each year that aren't from suicide. this number can easily be eclipsed if we required mental health checks for people who purchase alcohol or made drivers licenses more restrictive but people aren't calling for that. it's because the drive to restrict guns is driven more by emotion and how we feel about death than the actual deaths.
example: how is it possible to have a dui and still have a license at all?
On July 19 2016 22:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 21:56 Xialos wrote:On July 19 2016 21:14 TheVideoGameGuy wrote:
First time posting here, in fact, the first time I'm straying into a discussion of this topic on any forum. Currently, I'm neutral in my stance, but I'm leaning towards development and enforcement of strict firearm regulations, but am trying to keep my mind open.
There's one thing I really, really don't understand, though; why are people so eager to get guns to defend themselves? It seems so ignorant and rushed a choice as if the logic was 'biggest boom = best security'. I've spoken to an old friend who had actually received gun training (as a sport) during his school years, and as I'm a bit fond of the sport myself, have occasionally visited some local shooting ranges. The safety procedures followed advocate a good bit of time and delicate procedure and are in no way practical unless you have a gun in your pocket cocked and ready to fire at all times, which for any home defence situations, is a BAD idea. I just don't see someone being able to fetch their firearm, get it ready, and pull the trigger, what their increased hormone production (caused by the fear striking situation they're in), nervousness at shooting a bullet that could potentially kill another human being, and the panic they'd have at the varying levels of gun training they'd have received.
And second, I don't see why most Americans, in particular, require firearms in the first place. I can understand a wild west scenario, but a city with a police force ready to arrive at a single call with incredibly short delays makes them seem wildly unnecessary. However, as I can't speak from experience, don't want to put that forth as a strong point; maybe pointing that gun in a dark alley does make all the bad guys run away.
So why exactly do you need a gun? It's not going to help your or your family as much as a kitchen knife will. As a matter of defence, in all of the shootings I have read about, not a single one has been prevented by a bullet from a civilian firearm, and I'm willing to bet the actual usefulness of a gun in defence has some pretty weak statistics behind it.
So why do you want a gun? Style points? I'm a bit of a gun nut myself at times, but I'd never want to own one; I just don't see why. Lol what? Are you really saying that a ‘kitchen knife’ is more useful than a gun for self defence? It makes no sense dude (unless you can’t aim for shit). Do you realize how hard it is to fight someone 1v1 with a knife….? It takes balls. On the other hand, if you learn to aim properly, you can easily neutralize anyone (and it does not require physical strength). Defending yourself with a knife or a baseball bat does. That being said, i’m not even in favor of gun access lol. Mainly because It does more harm than good overall. But well, im canadian so I don’t have to worry about self defence, I’m from a small town where people leave their doors open and the keys in the car lol.. People here don’t fight, they just hug each other. I think he means that if you take the appropriate safety precautions for your gun, that means your gun is locked in a gun safe, with the ammo separately locked in a safe at another place. If someone is in your house, this makes it practically impossible to retrieve and use the gun, because you would have to pass that person multiple times while unlocking safes.
unless you believe guns are sentient beings then none of that is actually necessary unless you have children or idiots in your house. the other consideration is that someone might try to steal your firearm and commit crimes with them, this is why a public firearm registry is a terrible idea.
|
Videogameguy -> in response to oyur queries, I'd largely agree with your viewpoint; though I would note: there are some very rural parts of the country, where police response time would be at least half an hour, or maybe even quite a bit longer. Also a lot of people who hunt, and some wild animals around in those rural places where having a gun can be handy.
As to why people go for guns anyways: cultural norms, and in some cases a poor understanding of the actual value/risks; having a gun makes some people feel safe, regardless of whether it actually make them safe.
|
Have you actually tried to find stories of people protecting themselves with guns...because it is extremely easy, just google "gun self defense stories".
In general the media doesn't report much on these, as it goes against their normal narrative of how guns are evil.
I don't think there are many examples of "mass shootings" being stopped by armed civilians, but smaller things like home invasions/robberies....absolutely.
|
Yeah, I think that the idea of someone having a gun is probably a good deterrent to rob a house as well, as getting shot versus someone having a knife and rationalizing with them is a bit easier I'd think.
Although as I understand it, the police has a duty to protect the public, not you specifically. Besides, having to rely on someone else defending you instead of yourself might make you feel less powerless, even though in the end guns result in more crime/death.
Anyway, my perspective of it as someone who is pro-gun and has no guns and hasn't even fired a real lethal one... Is that the 9000 annual deaths in the US which are due to guns, is not a large number compared due to the deaths due to falling, suicide, and car accidents, which are all around 40,000. Furthermore, a lot of those 9000 deaths are drug and crime related, and hence I think mass murders are better statistics to look at, as those usually suggest innocent people getting killed.
From what I see, there's been 475 deaths in 2015 due to mass shootings, which was supposedly the year of mass murders, and that's imo a small number. The other events were 3 or less people, and if terrorism is your concern, then I think 3 deaths or fewer is usually stuff like an angry boyfriend at a cheated gf and stuff like that, which I believe could usually be carried out with knives, slipping in poison, strangling, etc.
Canada has 200~ gun related deaths to the USA's 9000~, but 1/9th the population, and hence if US was Canada's population, that'd be 1000 gun related deaths. Best case scenario is that USA gets to Canada level of firearm related crime, but realistically that would take generations for the circulation of guns to decrease and reach around that level. So anyway, my argument is that the problem is nowhere as large as it's made out to be, and people are not fully rational people, and if people want their guns, let them have them instead of spending government money, and creating hassle for people who'd like to own guns (paying yearly fees, paperwork, etc)... The number of accidents occurring due to guns is not large enough to piss off a large population and spend that additional money.
Firearm related deaths are on a decline on per capita terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
And education is a satisfactory way to deal with the "problem".
|
On July 19 2016 21:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 20:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way. The 17 year old refugee? Yeah i heard about it. Even in the USA though federal law forbids anyone under 21 purchasing a gun. I'm sure if he wanted to obtain a gun illegally he could have easily.Drugs are illegal and they are readily available.Deep web and internet in general make illegal items far easier to obtain than 20 years ago - drugs, weapons, whatever you want.Pay bitcoin.Totally untraceable.You can even 3D print firearms now that will shoot a few bullets.Video online see for yourself. All you are doing with these gun bans is reducing the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves and their families. From what i gather in the US, if you want a gun illegally, you can get one at every street corner, because guns are so common everywhere, which in turn of cause also means that illegal guns are very common everywhere. It is not easy to get a gun illegally in Germany. This is something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The black market is linked to the legal market. If the legal market is full of guns, and anyone can take a gun from the legal to the black market, since there is no registry, your black market will also be gigantic. If there are fewer legal guns, those are harder to get, and it is even harder to take a gun from the legal market to the black market, your black market is smaller. That means that a) It is harder to find black market guns, as there are less and it is more dangerous for the seller to offer one, b) The guns that are on the black market are more expensive. This means that no, if you want to obtain a gun illegally, you could not "do so easily". If i wanted to have a gun right now, i wouldn't have the slightest idea where to even start looking. I guess i could ask some biker-type guys around a Bordello or something, but i don't think that would be very effective. So if i were to suddenly have the idea to start a murder spree, i simply wouldn't get a gun. I am pretty sure it is like this for a lot of people. Meanwhile, in the US, i would just start asking random people where i can get a gun around here, or google "Gun shop city", and have one slightly thereafter. This is the difference. It is harder to get a gun here. The black market is not obvious nor easy to find if you don't have connections. That means that fewer potential criminals have guns. Which means that some of the either think about their killing spree, or have to go kill people with a knife instead, which ends in a lot fewer deaths. It is never about preventing every single gun crime, it is about reducing the availability of guns and thus reducing the lethality of a lot of crimes simply because the effort to get a gun was too high for the criminal to go through with it. And it works like a charm.
so what kind of guns do you want to restrict? is it SUCH an imperative to restrict "assault weapons" or rifles because they are used to take SOOOOOOOOO many lives? how many more restrictions are required to get 248 down to 0?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 20 2016 10:12 Chewbacca. wrote:
Have you actually tried to find stories of people protecting themselves with guns...because it is extremely easy, just google "gun self defense stories".
In general the media doesn't report much on these, as it goes against their normal narrative of how guns are evil.
I don't think there are many examples of "mass shootings" being stopped by armed civilians, but smaller things like home invasions/robberies....absolutely.
your middle point is just plain wrong. The reason they don't report about such things is because most people don't read about stuff like that. "if it bleeds it leads" the more horrific the event the better it sells. They report on what will get people to buy, and stopped crime, while a great thing, tends to be less interesting. It's just the way things are. The idea that the non-reporting is due to some narrative belief is absurd.
Also absurd to believe that "the media" has anything unified in their view, when it's a quite heterogeneous group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
