|
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. |
On July 07 2018 08:53 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 08:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
ya this "correlation is not causation" catchphrase can be used to wiggle out of anything.
Toronto's Police budget is going nowhere but up. I'm calling it now. it's not a catchphrase (at least not the way you're implying, as if it had little validity and is just being used as an excuse); it's a fact, and an important part of evaluating evidence and determining truth. moreover, it's not something I brougth up, so not really pertinent as a counterpoint.
it'll be interesting to see if the budget goes up and carding returns in some form (probably with a different name) if the gun violence goes back to its 2014 levels.
|
Maybe Canadian police are better than the NYPD but they found their version of "carding" (comes with a pat down) was actually remarkably ineffective. Something like 9 out of 10 people were completely innocent and far more than 1 in 10 ended up abused.
Boils down to trading liberty for a false sense of security.
|
This should be relevant to the thread:
edition-m.cnn.com
A Canadian mass shooting, 13 injured and 1 killed apart from the shooter. Mad people exist everywhere, but how would this victim list look if the shooter had access to a bumpstock semiautomatic rifle?
|
United States24768 Posts
It's hard to say without more details, but what is the point of asking how it would of looked if some other weapon was used?
From the sound of it, a bump stock would not have increased lethality... I don't think they help a shooter who is running around on the street trying to target people (not that I think they need to be legal). In those circumstances, a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine that does not jam could be much more effective than a handgun. It would depend a lot on the experience of the shooter and the rifle chosen. I don't know what rifles are prevalent in Toronto.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
to my knowledge, handguns and ar-15 style rifles are in the same 'tier' of control in canada.
|
Yeah it's not really about how deadly the instances are when they happen, it's about the frequency to which they happen. Most mass shootings in the US affect less than 15 people.
|
On July 23 2018 19:22 Slydie wrote:This should be relevant to the thread: edition-m.cnn.comA Canadian mass shooting, 13 injured and 1 killed apart from the shooter. Mad people exist everywhere, but how would this victim list look if the shooter had access to a bumpstock semiautomatic rifle?
Fully automatic fire is generally highly inaccurate. Depending on the situation and the density of crowds, etc. fully automatic weapons can become more lethal, especially when you start pairing said weapon with a high capacity magazine and an open area. Most situations though you would prefer a lower recoil semi-automatic weapon.
A more experienced shooter in general would be able to hit more targets with a semi-automatic weapon for the most part in most situations. CQC situations (such as inside night clubs like the Orlando shooting, although that was done by a semi-automatic IIRC) and large dense crowd situations (such as the Las Vegas shooting) are ideal environments for a fully automatic weapon. I'm not disagreeing with the assertion that bump stocks shouldn't be banned; they should. There's no practical reason to own a bump stock (where as one could reasonably argue the legitimacy of the AR-15 as not just a self defense tool, but also a hunting tool for smaller game).
|
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths.
|
Why stop at a tank? The government can come at you with a whole army, you need to be able to stop it all
|
On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths.
This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot.
And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology?
This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not.
|
On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths.
I'm gonna have to request a poe's law clarification; as with this thread you can never tell.
(i.e. is your post satire or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law )
|
United States43927 Posts
|
On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths.
wat. this has to be troll posting
|
On July 28 2018 08:52 KwarK wrote:
“German socialists” lol.
At least there is no background chek needed here, we know where he comes from.
|
Yeah, I'm also not buying KR_4EVR's conclusion for deciding escalation of individual, personal weapons "at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter" is the logical conclusion to all these arguments and statistics that show the need for exactly the opposite.
There needs to be a line drawn *somewhere* for a reasonable conversation on gun safety to occur, and I figured we could at least draw it somewhere before we worked our way up to anti-tank and anti-helicopter weapons for the American layman...
|
I took that post 100% as satire and will be deeply surprised if he posts and says he was saying it straight.
|
On July 28 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
I took that post 100% as satire and will be deeply surprised if he posts and says he was saying it straight.
I invite you to read his last post in the US pol-thread.
And i would put the limit on nukes. If everyone had a nuke there wouldn't be any wars + Show Spoiler +.
|
On July 29 2018 01:02 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
I took that post 100% as satire and will be deeply surprised if he posts and says he was saying it straight. I invite you to read his last post in the US pol-thread. And i would put the limit on nukes. If everyone had a nuke there wouldn't be any wars + Show Spoiler +.
You need to think this through a bit further. If MAD prevented a hot war between the US and the USSR, why can't MAD also protect citizens from evil governments or bad people? If i have a nuke and make sure it takes whoever wants to attack me, be it the government, evil german socialists or robbers with me, they will not attack me. Anything less gives other people power over me, which is horribly wrong.
/s
|
On July 29 2018 07:47 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 01:02 Godwrath wrote:On July 28 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
I took that post 100% as satire and will be deeply surprised if he posts and says he was saying it straight. I invite you to read his last post in the US pol-thread. And i would put the limit on nukes. If everyone had a nuke there wouldn't be any wars + Show Spoiler +. You need to think this through a bit further. If MAD prevented a hot war between the US and the USSR, why can't MAD also protect citizens from evil governments or bad people? If i have a nuke and make sure it takes whoever wants to attack me, be it the government, evil german socialists or robbers with me, they will not attack me. Anything less gives other people power over me, which is horribly wrong. /s
Also you should remember, that bad guys will always find a way to obtain nukes. Only making them legally available to everyone will guarantee parity!
|
On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not.
While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army.
And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
