|
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 21 2012 11:47 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:43 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. ![[image loading]](http://www.wildrivermedia.com/guns/handcannon.jpg) Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell. Maybe its because its selfmade. But the point stands as it is. You dont need sights (as was confirmed by another american in this thread, you dont need sights in "near-melee", you just point and shoot), at all(!). And why would the purpose defeated? Make sure you dont miss then, according to most of the ppl here, they can fire guns in a hysteric crowd and still guarantee to not fuckin shoot an innocent person. But thanks, so you need more ammunition, because you actually cant really aim and may need more than one shot, is that correct?
Dunno I never trained on a pirate weapon platform...yet..
|
On July 21 2012 11:45 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:18 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 11:12 guN-viCe wrote:
Cars are great. You can't deny that people have used them to murder people, though. Let's be accurate here. Assault rifles are great, too. But you can't deny selling one to 24 year old Med student without a license or credentials seems like a bad idea, even if they are squeaky clean. Let's not be ridiculous here. The benefit of cars far outweighs the risks they pose to society. I'm not saying that you should ban the sale of guns, it just that maybe it's time to raise the requirements of purchasing guns like these, instead of just selling them to any schmoe off the street. I already made a post agreeing with this sentiment. It's absurd that people can buy automatic weapons without some big barriers in the way(big fees, classes, psych evaluation, accepting responsibility for any damage caused by the gun even if by another person or if it is stolen, etc). Or ban them, I'm open to the idea. I feel you are missing my point. Guns can kill, cars can kill. Guns are a tool, cars are a tool. Ditto for axes, machetes, knives, etc. My point is: Some people are murderers, some are not. A gun is simply more efficient for killing than other weapons are( but you can still do a TON of damage with weaker weapons).
Yeah, but the primary idea behind a car is to go from a place to another, but due to the speed it can kill yes. The primary idea behind guns is to kill things, whether it's animals or humans is not important. Does it sound reasonable to you that everybody can purchase an item whose only ability is to kill living things? The obvious answer here should be no. So if the only legal way to use a weapon is to hunt with it then why the hell would you need a semi-auto AK-47? I agree that everybody could possibly have access to a weapon that he could hunt with, but not any gun and not to everybody.
|
On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon.
|
On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself.
Nukes do not have both defensive and offensive capabilities for a private citizen. They only have an offensive capability. A single individual will never face the personal threat of a nuclear blast from another single individual.
Private gun ownership can be justified, earning it a degree of freedom. Nuke ownership cannot.
But then, you knew your comparison was awful before you made it. Just responding obligatorily.
|
On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon.
He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted...
|
On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted...
Revealer of the obvious
|
On July 21 2012 11:40 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:14 InoyouS2 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:06 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:53 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 10:38 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:30 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 10:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:
[quote]
yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great
Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man. Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile. Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man. Real life is not some fucking comic/book action movie. I don't care how good with a gun you are, you are not trained or experienced in using it in a panic situation. Which is what the post I was replying to was implying. "Some hero with a gun could have saved everyone!!!" Maybe. Very likely not though. Get off it. It's not just "some hero". As someone else mentioned, what if there were 5 of the armed citizens? You don't need to be military trained to know that as soon as someone takes a shot, he will turn to deal with it, and that is your opportunity. It's simple wolfpack instinct. The guy chose correctly walking into a movie which was probably 80% 22 and below. Who knows what his chances wouldv'e been in a movie with a few older heatpackers sitting above him. What if...-scenario's are strawmen to the umphf degree. What if everyone wore bulletproof vests and gas masks at all times? This would obviously lead to less cases where the entire audience would get gassed and the allow people to escape with less injuries. Having untrained, triggerhappy citizen carry guns would provide much better chances for fellow innocents? Because that IS what you are claiming with "You dpn't need to be military trained to know ..." Getting shot by concealing citizens is not better than getting shot by a maniac. Guess what? You still bleed red. STRAWMAN is using words like untrained or triggerhappy to describe competent gun owners and what ifs like "what if everyone who carried was a complete idiot who had no training at all and blind fired into crowds of people hoping to hit a bad guy" Attempting to put a crazed gunman on the ground at the risk of hitting innocent civilians or getting sprayed yourself is better than saying "well, since I'm not military or swat trained, I'll just roll over and hope he doesn't shoot me or hope his gun gets jammed or just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ". Again, I'm not going to play those odds, and I would suggest that any one with a calm disposition and 20/20 vision... get a permit and start carrying. Carrying is not high risk high reward situation. It's low risk (accidental discharge is highly uncommon in concealed carry permit holders) and even though the risk of ever running into a situation where you need it is extremely low, you'll always know that you have the best chance of coming out alive or saving people around you.... if you have put in the time to know how to react in this situation. You can believe they have and know, or you can say they are full of shit and won't be of any help when the time comes. Those of us who have.... we know who we are. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/ You are exactly the type of person who should not be trusted with a firearm. Also your argument is bordering insanity and unless there is an alien invasion or another one of those hill-billy apocalypse scenarios, there is no reason for anyone to be armed, as it just provokes panic and far far more violence. Perhaps also read up on Human psychology and physiology when under extreme stress and anxiety, the last thing anyone is going to be in a situation that warrants having a concealed firearm is calm and collected. HYUK ALL PRO-GUN'RS ARE HILLBILLYS AND CONSPIRACY NUTS AMIRITE haha never heard that one before. You're so clever. :D Alright bro, because of your supreme ability to psychoanalyze people over the internet based on a series of articulate and well thought out posts, I MUST BE VOLATILE AND UNWORTHY OF CARRYING A GUN right? I shall now surrender my gun to the state based on Inoyousc2's analysis. You're an idiot. So what you're saying is because all humans have human psyches and physiology, that NO HUMAN can be trusted with a firearm in that situation, that no one exists who would fight the adrenaline well enough to take a steady shot, that everyone should just cower in fear or run for cover or be a meat shield for someone else right? Fucking gem right there.
Well, thanks for confirming my analysis at least.
As for your 'argument', which is more like a psychotic rant now; no I am not saying that no Human can be trusted, but most Humans cannot be trusted, that is why you have a domestic police force.
|
On July 21 2012 11:54 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. Nukes do not have both defensive and offensive capabilities for a private citizen. They only have an offensive capability. A single individual will never face the personal threat of a nuclear blast from another single individual. Private gun ownership can be justified, earning it a degree of freedom. Nuke ownership cannot. But then, you knew your comparison was awful before you made it. Just responding obligatorily.
My point was that the personal freedom defense can justify just about anything, if that makes you happy you can replace nukes by anything equally absurd.
What is accepted as normal personal freedom is 100% relative to your culture/upbringing and thus not a valid justification, best exemple being that we completely disagree on the matter.
|
On July 21 2012 11:54 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. Nukes do not have both defensive and offensive capabilities for a private citizen. They only have an offensive capability. A single individual will never face the personal threat of a nuclear blast from another single individual. Private gun ownership can be justified, earning it a degree of freedom. Nuke ownership cannot. But then, you knew your comparison was awful before you made it. Just responding obligatorily.
No it clearly have defensive ability... See Nagasaki and Hiroshima, pretty nice defense there.
|
On July 21 2012 11:52 mainerd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:47 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:43 mainerd wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Wheres the need for that? 10 round mags? Dont forget that you can change them pretty quickly (depending on the gun) - you dont need a huge high powered sniper rifle to defend yourself. Done. Massacres wont happen anymore (in that magnitude), and you can still fend off a thief. Of course, if there are 5 thieves, you have a problem, but you wouldnt kill all of them with a semi-automatic rifle as well. Wow what a silly looking thing, no trigger guard or sights, if you don't misfire just handling the thing you'll likely miss and might hurt someone who isn't threatening you with bodily harm. If the only guns people had shot just a single round, the entire point of carrying them, as a deterrent and for protection, would be nearly defeated. All you'd have to do is miss once and you're screwed. Then again maybe your entire post was sarcastic, I can't tell. Maybe its because its selfmade. But the point stands as it is. You dont need sights (as was confirmed by another american in this thread, you dont need sights in "near-melee", you just point and shoot), at all(!). And why would the purpose defeated? Make sure you dont miss then, according to most of the ppl here, they can fire guns in a hysteric crowd and still guarantee to not fuckin shoot an innocent person. But thanks, so you need more ammunition, because you actually cant really aim and may need more than one shot, is that correct? Hopefully you don't *need* any ammunition at all, but if you want to raise an attacker's hopes by giving them the knowledge you've just got one single shot and that's it, you're just weakening the chances that your sidearm will be a deterrent in the first place.
I wont need any at all, i come from a country where guns are not allowed to everyone. But again, you are missing my point. Let me make myself a bit clearer. Explain to me why the fuck you would need to buy a Desert Tactical Arms HTI .50 BMG?
Im curious for that answer. And while you are at it, explain to me why its completely legal to own a modified full auto SSAR-15 (with ~900 rounds per minute). Do you really want to explain to me, that these are "sports-weapons", or "hunting rifles"?
(edit: and we are talking about a sniper rifle that actually is more capable than some [or alot] military grade material)
|
On July 21 2012 11:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:49 m4inbrain wrote:On July 21 2012 11:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal? semi-auto rifles and handguns are really fun to fire at targets though. I agree on that actually. But that doesnt need you to take the rifle home with you, am i wrong there? i dont always want to shoot at targets at firing ranges though. my cousins live in the boonies and its fun as shit to drive out to the middle of nowhere and shoot their AK at a hill of dirt. that way you only have to pay for ammo and you can empty the clip as fast as you can (which almost every if not every firing range will NOT allow you to do)
In Canada, you're only supposed to fire Restricted Fire Arms at special firing ranges.
At some point, I hope the US finds a balance between enabling fun happy good times and protecting society from stupid people.
|
On July 21 2012 11:32 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:27 101toss wrote:On July 21 2012 11:18 Silidons wrote:
i just don't understand why i can get a license to buy a fucking semi-automatic rifle. yeah i'm going to go shoot deer with a fucking semi-automatic rifle. what the fuck?
handguns are an entirely different story, same thing with single-shot rifles. i'm against all guns, but i mean at least i can understand certain hand guns and single shot rifles. but a semi-automatic rifle? come on man...
also, i think it's funny how people think the NRA & republican leaders really care about your rights. they don't give a shit about rights, if they could make more money not selling you guns, you bet your ass they wouldn't sell you guns. and democrats just like to say things but rarely ever do them. obama sold more guns then any republican (since people thought he was going to take guns away).
it's not a rights issue anymore, it's all about $$$
obviously that's my opinion, sorry if i offended anyone... A semi-automatic rifle isn't too much of a problem if it has a 5/10 round magazine Also, keep in mind the dude made bombs and shit. Even if there were tighter regulations, I have no doubt he would still have acquired a weapon and setup designed to kill people. The fact it wasn't converted into an automatic weapon even surprises me. I honestly can't think of any use for a semi-auto in society. Why do you need a gun that can put out that much firepower that quickly? Pretty sure a typical hunting rifle can be used just fine for a hunter, outside of that, I'm not even sure who else really needs anything more than a handgun. Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. And when those freedoms are used to kill+hurt other people, should they not be in consideration for removal?
Not really, no. Free speech is misused all the time. (Disclaimer: I understand what free speech actually is, but for the sake of argument we're going to go with the way that free speech is usually portrayed by people who don't.) The right to bear arms is often misused to hurt innocent people, hell the right to a speedy trial actually gets abused by the prosecution fairly often. That one is absolutely essential, and so is freedom of religion as the government should have 0 say in what people believe in or don't believe in, but that one also gets misused quite a bit. A small percentage of people misusing freedoms to hurt other people should not ever result in it even being considered being removed from the vast majority of people who make good use of those freedoms.
Personally I don't own a gun, and I don't want a gun, but I do think that people should be allowed to have them. Both of my immediate neighbors are gun owners. I think they're a bit too easy to get at the moment though. Honestly I feel that a law abiding citizen with a gun is very little threat to me unless they mishandle it, whereas criminals with guns are a pretty big threat to me. Gun laws are pretty strict in regards to carrying/using unlicensed firearms, and those laws don't seem to deter criminals from using guns. Tighter gun control isn't going to have any impact on criminals having access to guns. It's easier for a criminal to get a gun than it is for a law abiding citizen. For a law abiding citizen to go and legally get a firearm there are some hoops to jump through, although not many. For a criminal that wants a gun however they just need cash and to know someone that sells guns illegally.
If only the military, law enforcement, and criminals had guns it really wouldn't be a good situation. As others have said the police respond to situations well, but they don't really respond in a timely manner. It works for some other nations because they don't have the sheer number of guns in the hands of criminals. I'll talk more about that in just a minute.
I was mugged last year. I was out for a run and the suddenly someone's arms were around my neck and they were trying to force me to my knees while another guy stepped around to my front and started kicking at me while shouting to his friend "check his pockets, check his pockets." - This was in a good neighborhood, in the middle of the day. So there I am trying to get these guys off of me and trying to deflect as many blows as I could when some other guy pulled up in his truck and told my attackers he was calling the police. They didn't give a shit. At all. They told him he was next and they kept kicking me and trying to choke me out. It wasn't my first fight in my life, but it was my first time being mugged, and I'll be honest it was a pretty scary experience. All I could think was "Well, hopefully the police get here before they do too much damage." because I realized I realistically wasn't going to be able to get away unscathed. A few moments later "I SAID FUCK OFF!" from off to my right somewhere, and then after a moment the one with his arms around my neck let go. I looked to see the guy from the truck standing there brandishing a handgun. They ran off.
I called the police from that guy's truck as he drove me to a business right up the street as he figured it would be safer. Cops took their time getting there, over the course of the next month more people got mugged there and as far as I know the police never actually caught those guys. Or if they did they never called me as they said they would, I didn't read about anyone getting caught in the local paper either. In that situation I was pretty glad that there was a nice guy with a gun driving by or who knows what would have happened? It just wouldn't have been good for me at all, I got seriously lucky.
All that said, I'd really like it if we lived in a world with no guns and no crimes, but that's not really an attainable goal, especially for the US. There are just too many guns out there. Legally owned guns, illegally owned guns, there are just too many. There is no way that law enforcement could ever get all of them away from people. The criminals wouldn't turn them in because they're not supposed to have them in the first place. A lot of otherwise law abiding citizens wouldn't turn in their guns either. (Which would then make them criminals.) I'm fairly certain that if only criminals and law enforcement had guns crime would actually go UP quite a bit as a few years ago I read that the three biggest robbery deterrants (according to criminals) were guns, dogs, security systems - in that order. If you take away the big one that just makes people easy picking for criminals. I don't actually have a source on that one unfortunately as I read it in print and not on the intertubes.
|
On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted...
If so he was missing my point.
I'm stating that freedom is a "good" in itself that has to be weighted against the "good" that comes from ridding people from guns. So if the cost of reduced freedom is less than the added value of added security then there's a good case for implementing the ban.
I said that i believe personal freedom is way.... WAY too important to give the state authority to infringe on my rights to own goods such as firearms.
The guy making the sarcastic remark failed to realize the argument and thus implied that ANY added security is worth the loss of personal freedom. I wonderif he also wants to ban kitchen knives, cigarette lighters and sharp edges.
|
On July 21 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted... Revealer of the obvious
With the exception your post contained no hint or sarcasm. You can't play off "you for real?" in any way.
On July 21 2012 12:08 theJob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted... If so he was missing my point. I'm stating that freedom is a "good" in itself that has to be weighted against the "good" that comes from ridding people from guns. So if the cost of reduced freedom is less than the added value of added security then there's a good case for implementing the ban. I said that i believe personal freedom is way.... WAY too important to give the state authority to infringe on my rights to own goods such as firearms. The guy making the sarcastic remark failed to realize the argument and thus implied that ANY added security is worth the loss of personal freedom. I wonderif he also wants to ban kitchen knives, cigarette lighters and sharp edges.
I wasn't commenting on the quality of his argument.
|
On July 21 2012 12:08 theJob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted... If so he was missing my point. I'm stating that freedom is a "good" in itself that has to be weighted against the "good" that comes from ridding people from guns. So if the cost of reduced freedom is less than the added value of added security then there's a good case for implementing the ban. I said that i believe personal freedom is way.... WAY too important to give the state authority to infringe on my rights to own goods such as firearms. The guy making the sarcastic remark failed to realize the argument and thus implied that ANY added security is worth the loss of personal freedom. I wonderif he also wants to ban kitchen knives, cigarette lighters and sharp edges.
Your initial post never mentioned anything about weighing the plus/minus that a ban on guns would generate, just that banning guns is bad because it infringes on personal freedom. And, even if it's not what you ment, that's definately stupid.
As for the point you made in that post, i agree with your reasoning but not with your conclusion. Cultural bias and all that.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Sometimes I just like reading this thread when it gets bumped because some of the posts are really funny
Oh internet arguments, a never ending source of entertainment ^_^
|
In the United States if you haven't been charged for a felony you can own a gun, as well as openly carry it as long as it is visible. You can also obtain a concealed carry liscence that is fairly easy to get. I haven't read any of the recent posts but my guess this was brought up because of the Colorado massacre that happened during the release of the new Batman movie. What happened today isn't going to give them the ability to take away our right to have guns, but they may make it harder for citizens to obtain a weapon when trying to purchase.
But to answer the question, yes I think people should be allowed to arm themselves if they have a level head. There should honestly be a system in place that can keep people with possible psychiatric problems from purchasing guns.
|
Thank God where I live there is ZERO gun violence.
|
I've heard people say (not necessarily on these forums, but probably on these forums as well) that a good reason for carrying guns is for defense (of oneself or even others) in situations where criminals come by, such as the recent Aurora cinema shooting.
The problem is that if you're in a situation like this where the assailant has a smoke screen and body armor, you're very just likely to get killed by trying to shoot him, since a hit with a typical .22 won't do much vs ballistic protection. It is also likely to get you killed in a situation where there's more than one person, such as a bank robbery, where an accomplice could be blending into the crowd not revealing themselves.
It's quite easily proven that more access or rights to problematic guns just makes for more gun crimes and deaths including accidental deaths, not less.
On July 21 2012 12:19 MysteryTerran wrote:
What happened today isn't going to give them the ability to take away our right to have guns, but they may make it harder for citizens to obtain a weapon when trying to purchase.
While understandable to do and not without benefit, it wouldn't do anything with regards to prevent shooting situations like this in my opinion, since this guy was not clearly mentally problematic until after he did what he did.
|
On July 21 2012 12:18 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 12:08 theJob wrote:On July 21 2012 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 21 2012 11:54 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 11:50 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 11:29 theJob wrote:
I believe people should be able to own guns for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. I believe people should be able to own nukes for the sole reason of not infringing on personal freedom. Freedom is a value in itself. You for real? What use does anyone have for a nuclear weapon. He was clearly criticizing the person he quoted... If so he was missing my point. I'm stating that freedom is a "good" in itself that has to be weighted against the "good" that comes from ridding people from guns. So if the cost of reduced freedom is less than the added value of added security then there's a good case for implementing the ban. I said that i believe personal freedom is way.... WAY too important to give the state authority to infringe on my rights to own goods such as firearms. The guy making the sarcastic remark failed to realize the argument and thus implied that ANY added security is worth the loss of personal freedom. I wonderif he also wants to ban kitchen knives, cigarette lighters and sharp edges. Your initial post never mentioned anything about weighing the plus/minus that a ban on guns would generate, just that banning guns is bad because it infringes on personal freedom. And, even if it's not what you ment, that's definately stupid. As for the point you made in that post, i agree with your reasoning but not with your conclusion. Cultural bias and all that.
I basically said freedom is a value in itself and that i am against a legislation that would reduce freedom. I'm sorry if my point didnt come trough at first.
I'm thinking you belive I am culturally biased towards freedom because you think I am an american.
Truth is I am culturally biased but it's rather from living in europe which has a great history of opressive states and rulers. I find it sad how little many of us here in europe value freedom when we've had our throats under the heel of some king / queen / dictator / [generic opressive regime] for the overwhelmingly majority of time throughout history.
The level of personal freedom and all the rights we have now are rarities if we look at the historical records – and fragile if history have thought us anything. Arguing for less freedom for the general population and a intensification of concentrated power – a step back to our darkest days – should (imo) not be done hastily, and only as a last resort when every other solution has been thoroughly explored and outruled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
