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.
The old “look at Chicago” argument. A city where you can drive 30 minutes out of state and buy unlimited guns without a background check. It is a city with strict guns laws surrounded by areas with lax gun laws and shops that are more than happy to sell fire arms to criminals.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
defends his store against 3 ARMED intruders.
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
no, you’re wrong.
Its fine, let him argue with the fictional person in his head by posting youtube videos.
Even the person in his head is right
Not sure what your point is, lol.
If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens then they suffer, no criminal who would do harm would care to listen to laws, it's easy to get guns if you know where and who to go to, but if U.S. people don't have guns then it will just hurt them. Look at Chicago, the gun law is so strict but for some reason the murder is up ten-fold, i wonder why.
He's saying we should ignore you because you're making arguments against nobody and using a strawman to make it look like you have a better case than you do. He's right, of course, but I just find it funny because even the strawman that you're attacking is correct.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
Black market isn't some magical criminal Walmart where you can get things as easily and as cheaply as in legal stores. We do have weapon black market in Europe too but you don't see small time criminals armed with guns. Organized crime gangs will have even automatic firearms, but the majority of lawbreakers are gun-less. In Poland I don't worry about a burglar or a car thief having a gun because a small fraction of them actually have one.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
you’re still wrong. outlawing guns does not mean you just ‘get them on the black market’
also where is this ad hominem? people are directly attacking your arguments because they are weak and have been torn apart ad nauseum, which of course isn’t to mention your first post in this thread was a full paragraph of ad hominem. please quote me one ad hominem reply. thanks.
the closest it gets is the allusion to a person in your head. which is directly calling out your numerous straw man arguments.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I mean, theft is illegal but people steal anyway, why bother having laws at all? Good guys will steal from the bad guys and everything will sort itself out.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
Very much agree with this. The fact the the US currently has a ridiculous (definition motivating example of an outlier level of ridiculous) problem with gun violence and people still don't want to even consider restriction to access of them blows my mind.
It's such a weird cultural stance for me to look at as an outsider, even being in a country that itself has serious gun-violence and a very liberal attitude to weapon ownership. Rights and freedoms are not so simple as "more restriction = bad, lemme have my guns".
Yes, having a very restrictive attitude to gun ownership, for a time, will affect non-criminals more. But the longer this system exists and the more guns are removed from circulation, the less of the kind of thing that has just happened, again, will. People may kill people, but guns make it a damn lot easier and increase the kill-count massively when someone goes off the rails, and don't give you nearly as much agency as a potential victim to defend yourself. You'll never eliminate violence, so let's not make perfect the enemy of good here and pretend the situation can't be improved.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
Very much agree with this. The fact the the US currently has a ridiculous (definition motivating example of an outlier level of ridiculous) problem with gun violence and people still don't want to even consider restriction to access of them blows my mind.
It's such a weird cultural stance for me to look at as an outsider, even being in a country that itself has serious gun-violence and a very liberal attitude to weapon ownership. Rights and freedoms are not so simple as "more restriction = bad, lemme have my guns".
Yes, having a very restrictive attitude to gun ownership, for a time, will affect non-criminals more. But the longer this system exists and the more guns are removed from circulation, the less of the kind of thing that has just happened, again, will. People may kill people, but guns make it a damn lot easier and increase the kill-count massively when someone goes off the rails, and don't give you nearly as much agency as a potential victim to defend yourself. You'll never eliminate violence, so let's not make perfect the enemy of good here and pretend the situation can't be improved.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I mean, theft is illegal but people steal anyway, why bother having laws at all? Good guys will steal from the bad guys and everything will sort itself out.
I presume the bold statement is sarcasm? Laws are very important, without them you have no formal way for the elites of keeping power and control over us regular joes of the world...
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
you’re still wrong. outlawing guns does not mean you just ‘get them on the black market’
also where is this ad hominem? people are directly attacking your arguments because they are weak and have been torn apart ad nauseum, which of course isn’t to mention your first post in this thread was a full paragraph of ad hominem. please quote me one ad hominem reply. thanks.
the closest it gets is the allusion to a person in your head. which is directly calling out your numerous straw man arguments.
Hi and nice to meet you Brian! If you make something illegal, then the black market is the ONLY PLACE you can get it!! Got it?
As for the ad hominem attack, I pm'ed the user and reported it to the mod, so either the guy removed it or a mod deleted it. I appreciate the community here at TL for letting me join the site, which I found from reddit. Cheers ^^
On November 09 2017 18:31 ahswtini wrote: [quote] that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
Very much agree with this. The fact the the US currently has a ridiculous (definition motivating example of an outlier level of ridiculous) problem with gun violence and people still don't want to even consider restriction to access of them blows my mind.
It's such a weird cultural stance for me to look at as an outsider, even being in a country that itself has serious gun-violence and a very liberal attitude to weapon ownership. Rights and freedoms are not so simple as "more restriction = bad, lemme have my guns".
Yes, having a very restrictive attitude to gun ownership, for a time, will affect non-criminals more. But the longer this system exists and the more guns are removed from circulation, the less of the kind of thing that has just happened, again, will. People may kill people, but guns make it a damn lot easier and increase the kill-count massively when someone goes off the rails, and don't give you nearly as much agency as a potential victim to defend yourself. You'll never eliminate violence, so let's not make perfect the enemy of good here and pretend the situation can't be improved.
What country are you from if I may ask?
South Africa. Although our problems are so much larger than access to guns and there is so little capacity for oversight it isn't even a political discussion here. I imagine if it was I'd lose some friends :|
On November 09 2017 22:01 Broetchenholer wrote: [quote]
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
Very much agree with this. The fact the the US currently has a ridiculous (definition motivating example of an outlier level of ridiculous) problem with gun violence and people still don't want to even consider restriction to access of them blows my mind.
It's such a weird cultural stance for me to look at as an outsider, even being in a country that itself has serious gun-violence and a very liberal attitude to weapon ownership. Rights and freedoms are not so simple as "more restriction = bad, lemme have my guns".
Yes, having a very restrictive attitude to gun ownership, for a time, will affect non-criminals more. But the longer this system exists and the more guns are removed from circulation, the less of the kind of thing that has just happened, again, will. People may kill people, but guns make it a damn lot easier and increase the kill-count massively when someone goes off the rails, and don't give you nearly as much agency as a potential victim to defend yourself. You'll never eliminate violence, so let's not make perfect the enemy of good here and pretend the situation can't be improved.
What country are you from if I may ask?
South Africa. Although our problems are so much larger than access to guns and there is so little capacity for oversight it isn't even a political discussion here. I imagine if it was I'd lose some friends :|
Ahhh, that's sad I was just reading a news story that murder rates for farmers is sky high lately because people are murdering the farmers and then stealing the crops/livestock... Is this true? Or has the news over-exaggerated it?
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
you’re still wrong. outlawing guns does not mean you just ‘get them on the black market’
also where is this ad hominem? people are directly attacking your arguments because they are weak and have been torn apart ad nauseum, which of course isn’t to mention your first post in this thread was a full paragraph of ad hominem. please quote me one ad hominem reply. thanks.
the closest it gets is the allusion to a person in your head. which is directly calling out your numerous straw man arguments.
Hi and nice to meet you Brian! If you make something illegal, then the black market is the ONLY PLACE you can get it!! Got it?
As for the ad hominem attack, I pm'ed the user and reported it to the mod, so either the guy removed it or a mod deleted it. I appreciate the community here at TL for letting me join the site, which I found from reddit. Cheers ^^
i fully understand the concept of a black market. i can only get moon rocks from the moon, but that doesn’t make it easily accessible to the public at large.
and just because i find it an odd thing to lie about, i’m the only one editing my posts between your first post and your claim of being attacked, and mods don’t delete posts. so again, where is the ad hominem? in some unrelated thread?
On November 09 2017 22:48 ahswtini wrote: [quote] well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
You see how the guns in that situation were a big part of the problem?
Bad people will always use violence, weapons, and/or the threat of violence to burglarize people's property. If guns were illegal, it would only disarm the shop owner because criminals will still be able to get guns on the black market because there exists a supply and demand for them (just like drugs which are smuggled in from Mexico).
We have laws against heroin, meth, and murder but all three still exist. If you outlaw guns, they will still exist on the black market where criminals buy/sell illegal goods & services.
I thank you for being nicer than the other two people in this thread who are just resorting to ad hominem. I've sent you a friend request. Cheers ^^
I suppose I can somewhat see what youre saying with the "only the good guys (shop owner in this case) will be disarmed, the bad guys can still get guns from the black market" but I think you have to look a little deeper than that.
If we ban the guns and force the bad guys to turn to the black market, that's a major major roadblock for a lot of would-be criminals. Do you know where to go to access the black market? I sure as hell don't and I would guess most would-be criminals don't either.
I am also venturing a guess that the black market is a tad more expensive than your neighborhood gun store, which would be another roadblock in the path of a would-be criminal.
Im not saying that a gun ban would be the end of gun violence, but I think there is some merit to the idea of putting as many obstacles in front of these would-be criminals as possible.
Very much agree with this. The fact the the US currently has a ridiculous (definition motivating example of an outlier level of ridiculous) problem with gun violence and people still don't want to even consider restriction to access of them blows my mind.
It's such a weird cultural stance for me to look at as an outsider, even being in a country that itself has serious gun-violence and a very liberal attitude to weapon ownership. Rights and freedoms are not so simple as "more restriction = bad, lemme have my guns".
Yes, having a very restrictive attitude to gun ownership, for a time, will affect non-criminals more. But the longer this system exists and the more guns are removed from circulation, the less of the kind of thing that has just happened, again, will. People may kill people, but guns make it a damn lot easier and increase the kill-count massively when someone goes off the rails, and don't give you nearly as much agency as a potential victim to defend yourself. You'll never eliminate violence, so let's not make perfect the enemy of good here and pretend the situation can't be improved.
What country are you from if I may ask?
South Africa. Although our problems are so much larger than access to guns and there is so little capacity for oversight it isn't even a political discussion here. I imagine if it was I'd lose some friends :|
Ahhh, that's sad I was just reading a news story that murder rates for farmers is sky high lately because people are murdering the farmers and then stealing the crops/livestock... Is this true? Or has the news over-exaggerated it?
Difficult to say to be honest. It is a problem, but isn't disproportionate to the overall murder rate. So bad, but not comparatively exceptional or unusual in SA.
On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote: I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do.
Actually, societies sometimes do other things than "move on and develop" they can become fascist (like Germany) or they can get conquered/invaded (Ukraine) or they can get taken over by communist revolution (Cambodia/Venezuela/Cuba) there are all sorts of REAL existential realities which either you do not understand or are not familiar with. Either way I thank you for the detailed response you have written and I'd sure like to hear more what you have to say. Cheers ^^
On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote: I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do.
Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK.
I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to.
Got a chuckle out of your polish coastline anology
On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote: I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do.
Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK.
I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to.
It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously)
Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really!
On November 10 2017 00:54 4ZakeN87 wrote: I think this is pretty simple.
US have much higher murder rate than any other western country. One reason is likely due that the more advanced weapons you have available, the easier it is to kill a large amount of people. Also if you priorly have access to weapons, it requires no planing to do so, i.e. a person in rage could easily kill a considerable amount of people.
In general, this idea/dream that people can defend themselves if they have a weapon, is not supported by the data. It is simply not the case. Anyone looking at the end result will come to conclusion that this is shit. Thus no other country in the world ever considers applying US weapon laws.
To be honest, who would suggest this to another country? Take Japan, should Japan allow semi automatic rifles to be sold in the streets? In what way would that make Japan a better country? And why would it be any different for US?
Is it your culture, your heritage? That is a nonsense argument as far as I am concerned. The vikings used to raid and plunder other nations. It is part of my heritage, but I am not about to suggest that Swedish people should go and raid the Polish coastline.
You move on and develop, that is what societies ought to do.
Your last 2 paragraphs really hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of people feel that gun ownership and the sense of power it brings are things they should have a right to. Maybe its the way we teach our children about how we fought for our freedoms or something, IDK.
I think another reason that we are so struggling to adapt here is that it requires people to relinquish tangible property. You actually have to physically part with something that you have been conditioned since birth to recognize as something you have a god given right to.
It has nothing to do with God. It's blatantly spelled out in the bill of rights! The second amendment exists and can be repealed if you convince enough Americans to abolish it. (see 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol -- another "great idea" which turned out disastrously)
Gun ownership isn't about a "sense of power" I have no idea what you're talking about and I own 2 guns and know several other people who own guns. It has nothing to do with that at all, lol. Maybe if you're borderline autistic or extremely introverted I guess... then maybe, but I dunno wtf you're talking about really!
"I've never ate cabbage, what even is a cabbage? I know several people and they don't know what a cabbage is too?!"
EPT
