EPTIf 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. | ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
| ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On February 29 2012 01:42 Krowser wrote: Carrying a gun was a sensible option 150 years ago when your farm could be attacked by bandits and no one was there to help you. Hence why it's in the American Constitution. Every man should be allowed to defend himself. Nowadays it's an enabler for senseless murder. The latest example being the Ohio shooting. And over here they are trying to get rid of the Gun registry.. why!? Because it has cost billions and hasn't done a single iota of good for anyone in this country. And at this point, we're not "trying to get rid of it", it is basically gone and only still here on technicality for the next few months. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 02 2012 11:29 Doz wrote: To say that firearm ownership should be restricted or more governed speaks to ignorance imo. Should we restrict knife ownership too? Slingshots? Karate? Anyone with the proper motivation to kill someone will find a way to do it, it doesn't matter what the tool is. Hell they could use a belt or a few glasses of water if they wanted. Come on, let's not get ridiculous. A five-year old isn't going to accidentally kill his dad with a yellow belt and a fifteen year old isn't going to on a potato gun killing spree. Treating guns like they're comparable to knives or karate is a weak argument. Guns are fine-crafted, easy-to-use instruments designed solely to inflict as much bodily harm as efficiently and quickly possible. They are not slingshots. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:59 Defacer wrote: If you have to conceal the fact that you own a large cache of guns, you probably shouldn't have a large cache of guns. Not having a gun registry simply makes it to easy for people to buy and sell guns illegally without reprecussions. It's an unjustifiable trade-off. Someone trotted out the "Nothing to hide" argument... I don't know if that is a general disregard for privacy of the people, but the owner of fifty assault rifles might be interesting, but the owners of one or two firearms aren't. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 13:42 Defacer wrote:Come on, let's not get ridiculous. A five-year old isn't going to accidentally kill his dad with a yellow belt and a fifteen year old isn't going to on a potato gun killing spree. A five-year-old could easily accidentally kill his entire family with matches and lighter fluid. Should we ban implements that start fires then, or do we expect people to keep dangerous tools out the hands of children on their own? On March 02 2012 13:42 Defacer wrote:Treating guns like they're comparable to knives or karate is a weak argument. Guns are fine-crafted, easy-to-use instruments designed solely to inflict as much bodily harm as efficiently and quickly possible. They are not slingshots. Slings are actually highly effective, deadly weapons that have been used throughout most of human history. Sure, we've never had someone go around on a school "slinging", but someone could easily do so. What, do you want to ban that too? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 02 2012 14:17 sunprince wrote: A five-year-old could easily accidentally kill his entire family with matches and lighter fluid. Should we ban implements that start fires then, or do we expect people to keep dangerous tools out the hands of children on their own? Slings are actually highly effective, deadly weapons that have been used throughout most of human history. Sure, we've never had someone go around on a school "slinging", but someone could easily do so. What, do you want to ban that too? I'm actually pro-gun ownership, I just think gun control in the US is too lax. You're equating regulating gun ownership to banning household items and anachronistic weaponry. Of course one should be more regulated than the other, the same way tobacco and cigarettes should be more regulated than selling ice cream and hard candy. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 14:42 Defacer wrote:I'm actually pro-gun ownership, I just think gun control in the US is too lax. Same. On March 02 2012 14:42 Defacer wrote:You're equating regulating gun ownership to banning household items and anachronistic weaponry. Of course one should be more regulated than the other, the same way tobacco and cigarettes should be more regulated than selling ice cream and hard candy. Yes, I do agree that firearms should be heavily regulated. What I take issue with is the large number of people who argue that firearms should be banned, due to logically inconsistent or objectively untrue reasons. It's almost depressing how many people believe that banning firearms will reduce violence, when there are more than enough ways to kill people without them. | ||
|
supdubdup
United States916 Posts
| ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On March 02 2012 14:51 supdubdup wrote: Pro-gun. F### you if u don't have crazy ass neighbors. We do, we're just not scared of them. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:34 allerion wrote: I'd rather read about a dead worthless kid than someone who was killed in their bed. Life underrated again. You think the kid had no family or whatever? How you can judge if his life was worthless? He deserved prison for sure, but not death. Especially if he was a kid, at 16yo we do lot of stupid thing. I broke in a house once at this age, the kid took a weapon with him because he could. If strict gun control=>kid no gun=>house owner no gun=>either he lets him steal his tv or he scares him, because burglars avoid confrontation=>a tv less or nothing. Instead you have a dead kid, a family devastated. And your point was to prove that guns are doing good? Great job. Of course the life of your family has the priority to a life of a stranger. But his life was not worthless. And if you think that of every little thief then you're just a sad person. | ||
|
NoSlack
United States112 Posts
We've beat this horse to death. Bottom line is america will be america, and the rest of the world will disagree with us. I will add this though. It seems ya'll are having problems with the concept of state laws and are asking a bunch of questions about how our government regulates this and that in each state. States are supposed to have different laws, and there's not ever going to be a national consensus. That gives you as a gun-nut the ability to say you want to live in a pro-gun state like Georgia where you can throw your gun up on the dashboard of your car while you drive around town (nobody actually does this because it's inappropriate). Likewise, if you are a gun-banner then you can decide to live in a state like california or new york and leave us gun-nuts to our business. Crime will be much higher where you live though compared to where I live. | ||
|
Tyree
1508 Posts
Say it became illegal to own guns for non police, non army people, how would you go about getting the millions of them out there back? You ever see those signs? "You come for my gunz you get the bullets" as in, you come to take my stuff ill shoot you. Overall i personally think weapons in the hands of ordinary people are bad but in the case of USA, it would be difficult to "clean" it up. Crime is the highest in america but i dont think it has anything to do with gun control, instead the privatization of prisons where people make money on locking you in is the real cause for concern rather than guns. But that is another topic. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On March 02 2012 16:16 NoSlack wrote: Man this thread grew about 10 pages in 24 hours. Same as my last post it seems. Americans like guns and mostly the europeans, canadians, and austrailians don't like guns. We've beat this horse to death. Bottom line is america will be america, and the rest of the world will disagree with us. I will add this though. It seems ya'll are having problems with the concept of state laws and are asking a bunch of questions about how our government regulates this and that in each state. States are supposed to have different laws, and there's not ever going to be a national consensus. That gives you as a gun-nut the ability to say you want to live in a pro-gun state like Georgia where you can throw your gun up on the dashboard of your car while you drive around town (nobody actually does this because it's inappropriate). Likewise, if you are a gun-banner then you can decide to live in a state like california or new york and leave us gun-nuts to our business. Crime will be much higher where you live though compared to where I live. Don't underestimate us Canadians. Unfortunately, we don't have the same culture as you guys about guns but we are making progress in eliminating our insane gun control laws. Our long gun registry is close to death which is a huge step in the right direction and I think that plenty more progress is possible while the Conservatives have a majority. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
Implication is that gun owners are frightened or paranoid people. It's not a matter of courage vs cowardice, it's a matter of making wise decisions and avoiding a risk. When taking a risk in any area we educate ourselves then choose the best wisest path. And my education on the statistics of crime tells me that I don't want myself or my family to become one. Seek pleasure, avoid pain. The human's basic instinctual rules. If you want to feel like you've 'evolved' past these instincts and take the risk, go ahead. But don't ask me to donate money for something like your son's charity for victims of violent crime when was in jeopardy and you couldn't save him. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On March 02 2012 16:12 TanTzoR wrote: Life underrated again. You think the kid had no family or whatever? How you can judge if his life was worthless? He deserved prison for sure, but not death. Especially if he was a kid, at 16yo we do lot of stupid thing. I broke in a house once at this age, the kid took a weapon with him because he could. If strict gun control=>kid no gun=>house owner no gun=>either he lets him steal his tv or he scares him, because burglars avoid confrontation=>a tv less or nothing. Instead you have a dead kid, a family devastated. And your point was to prove that guns are doing good? Great job. Of course the life of your family has the priority to a life of a stranger. But his life was not worthless. And if you think that of every little thief then you're just a sad person. He boiled it to very simple, blunt terms. Obviously he is not a proponent of slaughtering petty underage criminals. Quit trying to stir up a moral debate. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
In the past 20 years, the machete has been responsible for more deaths in the world each year than the gun. In a 6 week period in 1994 the machete was responsible for more deaths than every atomic weapon explosion combined. How does a long knife made for clearing brush have a higher kill streak than a precision weapon made only for killing? Why are we even talking about guns when there is a far graver threat to people's safety out there? SUPPORT PROPOSITION X! SUPPORT MACHETE CONTROL! SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT MACHETE BANS! | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:31 StarStrider wrote: I propose we start a new thread on whether you think we should outlaw a more dangerous handheld weapon: the Machete. In the past 20 years, the machete has been responsible for more deaths in the world each year than the gun. In a 6 week period in 1994 the machete was responsible for more deaths than every atomic weapon explosion combined. How does a long knife made for clearing brush have a higher kill streak than a precision weapon made only for killing? Why are we even talking about guns when there is a far graver threat to people's safety out there? SUPPORT PROPOSITION X! SUPPORT MACHETE CONTROL! SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT MACHETE BANS! You are obviously missing the entire argument. If you want to kill someone its easy. Innocent nonintented targets get killed in gangrelated wars if they where running around with machetes the unintended dead people would be much much lower. | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
On March 03 2012 07:31 StarStrider wrote: I propose we start a new thread on whether you think we should outlaw a more dangerous handheld weapon: the Machete. In the past 20 years, the machete has been responsible for more deaths in the world each year than the gun. In a 6 week period in 1994 the machete was responsible for more deaths than every atomic weapon explosion combined. How does a long knife made for clearing brush have a higher kill streak than a precision weapon made only for killing? Why are we even talking about guns when there is a far graver threat to people's safety out there? SUPPORT PROPOSITION X! SUPPORT MACHETE CONTROL! SUPPORT POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT MACHETE BANS! And an equally stupid and irrelevant argument (for the other side) would be: "I propose we start a new thread on whether you think we should legalize a more safe weapon: the nuclear bomb. In the past 50 years, the nuclear bomb has been responsible for way less deaths than deaths than guns." This thread has definitely been quite entertaining. I'm not sure which slippery slope argument is funnier. That if we ban guns we should ban knives, bats, and slingshots (LOL). Or that if guns are legal, then we should legalize machine guns, rocket-launchers, biological weapons and nuclear bombs. edit: I think the slingshot takes it  | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On March 02 2012 14:10 TanGeng wrote: Someone trotted out the "Nothing to hide" argument... I don't know if that is a general disregard for privacy of the people, but the owner of fifty assault rifles might be interesting, but the owners of one or two firearms aren't. I just think that sometimes invasion of privacy is justifiable. It's unfair to the responsible gun owners out there, but don't blame me, blame all the nutbars and retards out there preparing for World War 5. If registering guns acts as a effective deterrent to the 1% of wackjobs out there that want a gun to do something crazy, than maybe it's worth it. It saves lives. Let's put it this way: I think guns should be, at the very least, as regulated as cars -- you should need to earn a license, a registered vehicle, be insured etc. Seriously. Who thinks licence plates are a bad idea? | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:37 Defacer wrote: I just think that sometimes invasion of privacy is justifiable. It's unfair to the responsible gun owners out there, but don't blame me, blame all the nutbars and retards out there preparing for World War 5. If registering guns acts as a effective deterrent to the 1% of wackjobs out there that want a gun to do something crazy, than maybe it's worth it. It saves lives. Let's put it this way: I think guns should be, at the very least, as regulated as cars -- you should need to earn a license, a registered vehicle, be insured etc. Seriously. Who thinks licence plates are a bad idea? How could registering a gun possibly be a deterrent? Explain to me the process by which a registry could save a single life. In Canada, we spent $2 billion on a registry and now we're getting rid of it. Why? Because it did literally zero good. There is nothing about registering guns that could possibly deter any crime. There's also no correlation with large gun collections and violent crime. I'm a completely responsible and rights respecting person, and, if I had the money my firearm collection would be very large. Am I a nutbar/retard because of this? On the other hand, all it takes is a single $100 gun to go on a rampage. For a look at someone with a huge collection of firearms, just check out this guys youtube channel. | ||
| ||
