EPTLong story short, the US or its population rather has to literally grow up and stop acting like little children, who fear their favourite toys getting taken from them. When "they", as in a large part of their population, have come to the conclusion pretty much any other country in the world has come to ("guns (yes, every gun, not just semi-auto, auto, bazooka, whatever) are dangerous and thus should be heavily controlled"), things are likely to change to a much better state than what you have now, a mass shooting every 2 months.
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. | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
Long story short, the US or its population rather has to literally grow up and stop acting like little children, who fear their favourite toys getting taken from them. When "they", as in a large part of their population, have come to the conclusion pretty much any other country in the world has come to ("guns (yes, every gun, not just semi-auto, auto, bazooka, whatever) are dangerous and thus should be heavily controlled"), things are likely to change to a much better state than what you have now, a mass shooting every 2 months. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8809 Posts
not sure about this years stats but im pretty sure there were more mass shootings than the number of days in a year for 2016. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 05 2017 19:35 evilfatsh1t wrote: lol every 2 months? you wish. not sure about this years stats but im pretty sure there were more mass shootings than the number of days in a year for 2016. ok gonna need a source for this claim | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls Puts the total number of those mass shootings in 2016 at 383 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
Also some statistics about it. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9025 Posts
... State lines don't stop guns It's important to remember here that Chicago is very close to two states that have relatively weak gun laws: Wisconsin and Indiana. So while it's easy to pick on Chicago (or any other high-crime city) for its ugly statistics, says one expert, taking bordering states into account weakens this gun-advocacy talking point. "It's not a scientific study. It's an anecdote," said Philip Cook, a professor of public policy studies at Duke University. "They might have pointed to Washington, D.C., back in the days when D.C. banned handguns and yet had high gun-violence rates. Those bans are only at best partially effective, because the borders are permeable." Of course, D.C. borders Virginia, which does not have strong gun laws. (It gets a D from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.) Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ rating from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-. Source | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore. I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote: One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed. A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore. I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" I'm not interested in making a pro gun argument, but this notion that because the US army is extremely powerful guns are useless, is quite simply nonsense. Guns can be used in guerrilla warfare style resistance, as tyranical governments tipically do not want to eliminate their citizens but rather control them. Plus, it is probable the U.S. Army would be divided in such scenario, so fighting capabilities for citizens would be valuable. Morever, in any lawless situation, guns become extremely valuable as a way to procure scarce resources (food, water) and self defense in the lack of police forces. The odds of this happening in the US. is extremely low, so you could argue that they are essentially a non issue, but saying guns would be useless in this unlikely scenario is a disservise to your argument. My 2 cents. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
But I get what youre saying. Also when you dismiss someone's points as "simple nonsense" before presenting your own it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1951 Posts
On October 05 2017 23:36 GoTuNk! wrote: I'm not interested in making a pro gun argument, but this notion that because the US army is extremely powerful guns are useless, is quite simply nonsense. Guns can be used in guerrilla warfare style resistance, as tyranical governments tipically do not want to eliminate their citizens but rather control them. Plus, it is probable the U.S. Army would be divided in such scenario, so fighting capabilities for citizens would be valuable. Morever, in any lawless situation, guns become extremely valuable as a way to procure scarce resources (food, water) and self defense in the lack of police forces. The odds of this happening in the US. is extremely low, so you could argue that they are essentially a non issue, but saying guns would be useless in this unlikely scenario is a disservise to your argument. My 2 cents. To be extremly nitpicky about what you wrote, you say guns are useful in a zombie apocalypse or a breakdown of law and order so you can threaten/kill people to stay alive? I am not too happy with that argument. If society breaks down, i would rather like the populace not to be armed to the teeth so that people have no reason to feel extra threatened. I am pretty sure that if Europe and the States would be hit by the same catastrophe, Europe would survive longer because we wouldn't be as scared from each other. Resulting in more people surviving for longer. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 06 2017 00:53 Broetchenholer wrote: To be extremly nitpicky about what you wrote, you say guns are useful in a zombie apocalypse or a breakdown of law and order so you can threaten/kill people to stay alive? I am not too happy with that argument. If society breaks down, i would rather like the populace not to be armed to the teeth so that people have no reason to feel extra threatened. I am pretty sure that if Europe and the States would be hit by the same catastrophe, Europe would survive longer because we wouldn't be as scared from each other. Resulting in more people surviving for longer. the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? | ||
|
brian
United States9638 Posts
On October 06 2017 01:18 ahswtini wrote: the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? we aren’t trying to fix a hypothetical problem with fictitious victims. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1951 Posts
On October 06 2017 01:18 ahswtini wrote: the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? Yes. Edit: Okay, why might be interesting. I believe that a society that has accepted that the power lies not with them will more easily create a society with no centralized power. In the inevitable zombie apocalypse, i think the US would tear itself apart. Not just because they have guns but also because they have been brought up to believe they deserve everything and can achieve everything and now they have a gun and nobody is gonna tell them what to do. Thesentiment that danglars is usually posting is certainly true. There might be more individual tragedies if the 50 kg woman does not have a gun, but society itself will be more civilised in a country whithout the great equalizer. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 06 2017 01:25 brian wrote: we aren’t trying to fix a hypothetical problem with fictitious victims. i like how you target my post, even though it was responding to another post that brought up the collapse of society scenario. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17267 Posts
On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote: One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed. A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore. I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" ya, i think private citizens should be able to have their own F35 or Tank along with re enforced bunkers as houses. i'd like to see bullet proof vests legalized in Canada. its complete BS that i can't wear one. You have to be available to be shot by the cops at any minute of the day. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 06 2017 01:18 ahswtini wrote: the gun is the great equaliser. the gun is what allows the 100 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man. what makes you think that when there is no more law and order, the strong won't prey on the weak, as has been the case ever since human history began? do you really think, if the police disappeared tomorrow and the concept of crime no longer existed, that a society without guns (and realistically, in places that have banned guns, with the police out of the way, the criminals would have the monopoly on guns) would be much better off? I think this is a vast misrepresentation of human psychology to think that with guns, there will be less predatory behavior. Who says that the physically weak (with the assistance of guns) are not just as likely to take from others more than their fair share? Look at all the amount of crime and injustice that does not involve direct physical violence. The most that gun proliferation does is erode trust and promote fear. | ||
|
brian
United States9638 Posts
On October 06 2017 04:50 ahswtini wrote: i like how you target my post, even though it was responding to another post that brought up the collapse of society scenario. i feel like replying to more recent posts is a normal thing people do posting on forums. i didn’t intend to target you or anyone in particular. i don’t know you any better than the person that you also ‘targeted’ in much the same way i targeted you. had he been the last to reply in the thread i’d have quoted him instead. | ||
|
yB.TeH
Germany415 Posts
On October 05 2017 23:16 Aveng3r wrote: One problem as I see it is that our gun laws were made back when it was only muskets. Idea was to provide for citizens to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government if needed. A bit outdated now, as the government has tanks, drones, F35s, etc. The spirit of the law doesnt really apply anymore. I agree that the main sentiment now is "I like guns, dont take them away from me" let's assume your ridiculous statement that planes and drones are an adequate tool to control a country is true than are you asking for less gun control, or do you want the people to be even more powerless? | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1951 Posts
| ||
| ||
