|
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 17:26 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. Just saying they made it for self defense doesn't make it true. I was unaware the 13 colonies had such crime problems that it was a bigger issue than resisting the british. I'm also pretty sure that being more of a frontier that a lot of colonists had guns, the question was whether the (british) government should be able to confiscate them in order to manage the uprising/resistance. It would be pretty hypocritical for the independent states to keep outlawed the same (technically illegal) practices which helped them win independence in the first place. The second amendment had more in conjunction with the freedom of assembly than public living standards policy.
If the British banned fire arms and keep every firearm out of the hands of the Americans, there is no way they would have won the war and their freedom in the first place. You have a point.
|
1019 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning.
I think people in the states should be more faithful in their public institutions and the federal government. The very idea that someone like the chief of staffs or the president would order the military to go around killing american citizens is pretty far from reality. The system of our country doesn't work that way.
Don't start mentioning zeitgeist or conspiratory bullshit about the US government just because I wrote ^^^^^^. Having a little faith is different than naivety.
|
On July 21 2012 17:35 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. I think people in the states should be more faithful in their public institutions and the federal government. The very idea that someone like the chief of staffs or the president would order the military to go around killing american citizens is pretty far from reality. The system of our country doesn't work that way. Don't start mentioning zeitgeist or conspiratory bullshit about the US government just because I wrote ^^^^^^. Having a little faith is different than naivety.
Faith in the US government? lol come on, this country is on the way to bankruptcy because the government can't get a hold of all their spending. And all these bullshit wars killing hundred of thousands of innocent people are a result of an out of control criminal government. The US government has killed more innocent people than any terrorist hijacking an airplane and crashing into public places could ever do. Faith in the government is the last thing anyone should have to be very honest, at least this current government.
|
Wanting to maintain the ability to resist an unwanted government seems like a perfectly legitimate position to me, by the way, though it seems sort of far-fetched.
I'd be happier if more of the pro gun side relied on that point of view than what seems to be a founding father bait and switch into public safety.
|
On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning.
Seriously?
Of course the government can do whatever they want to this country. WILL they do it? Hell no. The backlash of declaring something like marshal law throughout the country and seizing guns for no apparent reason would be huge and devastating.
While the chances of something like this happening are low, it doesn't matter. 12 lives were lost in that shooting. Don't forget the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings as well. People DIED in those shootings. If limiting the freedom of firearms helps limit these occurrences, I'm all for it.
|
On July 21 2012 17:41 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:35 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. I think people in the states should be more faithful in their public institutions and the federal government. The very idea that someone like the chief of staffs or the president would order the military to go around killing american citizens is pretty far from reality. The system of our country doesn't work that way. Don't start mentioning zeitgeist or conspiratory bullshit about the US government just because I wrote ^^^^^^. Having a little faith is different than naivety. Faith in the US government? lol come on, this country is on the way to bankruptcy because the government can't get a hold of all their spending. And all these bullshit wars killing hundred of thousands of innocent people are a result of an out of control criminal government. The US government has killed more innocent people than any terrorist hijacking an airplane and crashing into public places could ever do. Faith in the government is the last thing anyone should have to be very honest, at least this current government.
Amusing. I'd love to know when we started killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people.
|
Time and time again in first world countries it's been shown that countries that don't have gun control make it much easier for criminals to get guns regardless of the reason for the laws.
Strict gun control is the only way to keep guns off the streets reasonably. Toronto is one of the largest cities in North America and also has the least gun related crimes of any major city in the USA simply because the people who do snap one day can't simply grab a gun from the local corner store in a single afternoon.
26 years in Canada and I've never even heard a single gunshot. Last 2 times Visiting the USA both times heard shootings right outside my hotel (Detroit is probably the most violent place I've ever been to, very dangerous), anyone in the USA who supports gun ownership has never actually be in a safe place to live...
|
On July 21 2012 17:46 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. Seriously? Of course the government can do whatever they want to this country. WILL they do it? Hell no. The backlash of declaring something like marshal law throughout the country and seizing guns for no apparent reason would be huge and devastating. While the chances of something like this happening are low, it doesn't matter. 12 lives were lost in that shooting. Don't forget the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings as well. People DIED in those shootings. If limiting the freedom of firearms helps limit these occurrences, I'm all for it.
Seriously?
And how many people do you think have been saved by use of firearms through self defense? This isn't about limiting civilian firearms, it's getting rid of it COMPLETELY for GOOD if Obama signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. "Limit these occurences" like how or what? They already RARELY happen in the first place and if you study any history of Man, people have always been killing each other throughtout history. It's something that you're going to have to accept. Also by the way, what backlash would their be if the government declared Marshal Law and immediately expended all of your rights? Oh yea, there wouldn't be any backlash because you'd have a mass of unarmed civilians against an armed government. Good luck.
|
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
|
On July 21 2012 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK. What makes you say that? Is there no black market in the UK or something? I'm just curious how you can know this for sure. Pretty sure that if a guy wants to get his hands on a gun, he'll find a way to do it. Regardless of the place. I'm not extremely for or against gun control laws, but I believe it's a bit naive to think that any one place is invincible to disasters, tragedies, or maniacs.
As someone who has lived in cities all my life the only time I've seen a gun (including in the hands of police) is in foreign countries and once at the airport when I flew a few weeks after 9/11.
People just don't have guns here. And semi automatics, the kind that allow this sort of tragedy are just unheard of. Even the overwhelming majority of criminals aren't using guns.
|
On July 21 2012 17:54 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:46 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. Seriously? Of course the government can do whatever they want to this country. WILL they do it? Hell no. The backlash of declaring something like marshal law throughout the country and seizing guns for no apparent reason would be huge and devastating. While the chances of something like this happening are low, it doesn't matter. 12 lives were lost in that shooting. Don't forget the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings as well. People DIED in those shootings. If limiting the freedom of firearms helps limit these occurrences, I'm all for it. Seriously? And how many people do you think have been saved by use of firearms through self defense? This isn't about limiting civilian firearms, it's getting rid of it COMPLETELY for GOOD if Obama signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. "Limit these occurences" like how or what? They already RARELY happen in the first place and if you study any history of Man, people have always been killing each other throughtout history. It's something that you're going to have to accept. Also by the way, what backlash would their be if the government declared Marshal Law and immediately expended all of your rights? Oh yea, there wouldn't be any backlash because you'd have a mass of unarmed civilians against an armed government. Good luck.
And how many nameless incidents have occured where someone was shot over something that wasn't self-defense? Going to tell you right now that after living in the city of Chicago for 20 years and hearing news reports on almost every single news broadcast such as some little 9 year old girl playing in her basement getting killed by a stay bullet, that this city alone will outnumber the amount of situations in which guns have saved lives.
What backlash? Not sure, possibly the UN getting involved, and the eventual collapse of being one of the world's strongest powers.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:50 Figgy wrote:
Time and time again in first world countries it's been shown that countries that don't have gun control make it much easier for criminals to get guns regardless of the reason for the laws.
Strict gun control is the only way to keep guns off the streets reasonably. Toronto is one of the largest cities in North America and also has the least gun related crimes of any major city in the USA simply because the people who do snap one day can't simply grab a gun from the local corner store in a single afternoon.
26 years in Canada and I've never even heard a single gunshot. Last 2 times Visiting the USA both times heard shootings right outside my hotel (Detroit is probably the most violent place I've ever been to, very dangerous), anyone in the USA who supports gun ownership has never actually be in a safe place to live...
Don't be silly, yes, gun control makes guns harder to get, but don't think for a moment it makes it impossible, and don't think for a moment that crazy people won't do crazy things with something other than a gun if they can't get one. The Batman movie shooter has his home rigged with explosives, he could have just as easily used a bomb if he couldn't get a gun.
Violent crimes are generally a result of one of two things: lousy economic conditions and poverty, or someone being mentally unstable. Canada has better economic conditions for the poor than the U.S. does, and with health care and other government benefits, crime rates are just plain lower. And yes, Detroit sucks ass, don't compare the rest of the country to it, it's basically the single worst place in the entire nation. And your anecdotal argument is basically worthless.
Personally, I favor making it illegal to own automatic weapons and weapons with large magazines (say, more than 8 shots), but if someone feels they need to own a handgun to protect their home, or wants a hunting rifle, go for it. Removing guns doesn't make things safer, and adding more guns doesn't make things safer, so there's really no difference. The way to make things safer for people is to improve the economic environment.
You might have noticed that violent crime is significantly more common among the poor.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:58 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 21 2012 04:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK. What makes you say that? Is there no black market in the UK or something? I'm just curious how you can know this for sure. Pretty sure that if a guy wants to get his hands on a gun, he'll find a way to do it. Regardless of the place. I'm not extremely for or against gun control laws, but I believe it's a bit naive to think that any one place is invincible to disasters, tragedies, or maniacs. As someone who has lived in cities all my life the only time I've seen a gun (including in the hands of police) is in foreign countries and once at the airport when I flew a few weeks after 9/11. People just don't have guns here. And semi automatics, the kind that allow this sort of tragedy are just unheard of. Even the overwhelming majority of criminals aren't using guns.
Don't be silly, almost every gun made in modern days are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means you don't have to reload or rearm the weapon after every time you fire. It's automatic weapons you need to be worried about, or semi-automatics with large magazines.
With regards to the issue of self defense many people keep bringing up, why not use non-lethal self defense measures like a taser/stun gun or pepperspray? Tasers are inexpensive and easy to get your hands on, and you'll never accidentally murder your child with it, or have your child kill him/herself or someone else when you forgot to lock it up.
|
#Kaal, about 1 million iraqi civiliations if I'm not mistaken, that in only 1 war. At this point, the government is a merely a big money grab, whoever thinks otherwise is living in a world of faeires and elves. Just because we have a really really small percentage of actually decent people in government, doesn't change anything at the executive level.
About people who want guns to defend against their government....really guys ? After trillions spent on wars and research to get bigger and stronger weapons you think a simple gun would save you ? You guys are delusionsal no offence, I support gun ownership, but the only reason for that is to defend your self from criminals you might encounter in the streets at a late hour if some1 is out to assault you...People who think having a gun would be worse are beyond retarded because having a gun implying having the ability to succesfully use it ( you don't get to drive a car unless you get a license , so I also support for gun ownership a thourough training for how to actually use guns before you get to own one ).
I talked about this again. A criminal will get a gun no matter what, he does not care if he gets it legally or otherwise, and even if there aren't legal ways of getting guns, guns are made nonetheless, and criminal organization make a ton from illegally selling weapons. This only leaves the law abiding citizen defenseless when some1 comes to assault you, or better yet raids your house. Really low chances ofc, I never think about these things, unless when I see a thread like this.
|
Fascinating Debate. In Germany there were headlines in newspapers when the police jailed the boss of the german Hells Angels and they found a couple of handguns in his house. The only time in my life i have seen a gun on the street was, when some islamic extremists threatened to bomb the Reichstag.
People just don't have guns here. And semi automatics, the kind that allow this sort of tragedy are just unheard of. Even the overwhelming majority of criminals aren't using guns.
Same here.
|
On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Handguns were the sole weapon used at Virginia Tech.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:56 XXXSmOke wrote:
I really like the middle approach alot of ppl are taking with this debate since the events of yesterday,
I agree that hand guns are important and We have the right to use those for self defense. There's tons of news stories where a hand gun armed citizen actually stops crimes from happening.
On the other hand why the fuck, do we have citizens armed with a shotgun and AR 15's????????? The colorado guy was also able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo in a short period of time.
Imagine if that guy had only hand guns, do you think we would have 12 dead and 58 wounded??? Please argue that he would of had the same result, you cant.
Read up on virginia tech.
EDIT: Graviton beat me too it >_<.
|
On July 21 2012 18:00 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 17:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:46 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. Seriously? Of course the government can do whatever they want to this country. WILL they do it? Hell no. The backlash of declaring something like marshal law throughout the country and seizing guns for no apparent reason would be huge and devastating. While the chances of something like this happening are low, it doesn't matter. 12 lives were lost in that shooting. Don't forget the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings as well. People DIED in those shootings. If limiting the freedom of firearms helps limit these occurrences, I'm all for it. Seriously? And how many people do you think have been saved by use of firearms through self defense? This isn't about limiting civilian firearms, it's getting rid of it COMPLETELY for GOOD if Obama signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. "Limit these occurences" like how or what? They already RARELY happen in the first place and if you study any history of Man, people have always been killing each other throughtout history. It's something that you're going to have to accept. Also by the way, what backlash would their be if the government declared Marshal Law and immediately expended all of your rights? Oh yea, there wouldn't be any backlash because you'd have a mass of unarmed civilians against an armed government. Good luck. And how many nameless incidents have occured where someone was shot over something that wasn't self-defense? Going to tell you right now that after living in the city of Chicago for 20 years and hearing news reports on almost every single news broadcast such as some little 9 year old girl playing in her basement getting killed by a stay bullet, that this city alone will outnumber the amount of situations in which guns have saved lives. What backlash? Not sure, possibly the UN getting involved, and the eventual collapse of being one of the world's strongest powers.
Those crimes are comitted because there is widespread poverty there. Someone with a good job who is able to support himself and a family is much less likely to commit a crime than someone who doesn't have that. Fix the economy and poverty and crime rate lowers. Whether you illegalize guns or not, they are still going to get them, or they'll use other means to commit their crimes. Can't blame guns or weapons for poverty.
|
No guns in my country and hardly anyone ever gets shot. The thought that just any frustrated, furious or troubled person could posess an instrument that can end a person's life at the press of a button seems downright surreal.
Yes, once the streets get flooded with semi-automatics and such the entire situation kinda spirals out of control but if this is a debate on the pros and cons, there are zero pros to introducing guns to any society that doesn't condone them.
|
On July 21 2012 18:07 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 18:00 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:54 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:46 Cloud9157 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:29 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 17:22 white_horse wrote:On July 21 2012 17:08 NotSupporting wrote:On July 21 2012 16:42 Esk23 wrote:On July 21 2012 16:33 igotmyown wrote:
Are people sure that the US founding fathers implemented the second amendment for criminal home invasion scenarios?
It seemed much more to institutionalize their efforts to organize and fight the British. I personally doubt that in modern times it would be particularly effective to fight the government, so it seems pretty archaic.
On the other hand, if say the Burmese had access to firearms a few years ago, things might have gone differently. And possibly some of the Arab spring countries, although those might have turned out much worse.
Finally, I hate this civilians are safer with guns or without type debates. There's probably some absolute truth for an answer, but for some reason it becomes an opinion based argument. What's the point of even arguing, it's either true or it's not, someone just do a metastudy, get the final answer, and end the argument once and for all. The Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of self defense, so in a way yes. If someone in the government can have guns it makes absolutely 0 sense that the citizens can't. The government's purpose is to serve and represent the people, the people are the ones who are supposed to be in charge but that's really been slipping away over the years. The 2nd Amendment was created in self defence - from the British Empire. When America was founded it was still under threat from the British who at any point could come back to retake their lost colonies. It was therefore a good idea to give everyone the right to own a gun, if everyone had access to a gun then they would be ready to defend their new country at any point, the right to form militias had the same purpose. Also, the 2nd Amendment is severely outdated. Think about what kind of weapons they were referring too back then, it was a gunpowder gun with the capability to be fired once and then had to be reloaded, when this right were given to the people there were no automatic machine-guns capable of killing hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. If some psycho would go crazy with a gun back then he could take down one person if he got lucky. ^this, when NRA nutjobs wave the constitution in front of your face. An armed citizenry to prevent the government from infringing your rights? I call bullshit. The US government can do whatever they want with the american populace (even if its obviously not going to happen) with their tanks, weapons, helicopters, etc etc. Do people seriously believe that a portion of the citizenry armed with handguns and rifles will be able to fight the most powerful military in the world? And even before we go into this stupid debate, the very idea that the US government would do something to cause regular people to go up in arms is really farfetched and very extreme. Keep your dumb mouth shut if you think that an armed moviegoer could have stopped the colorado shooter. They wouldn't have. And who the hell would bring a gun to a movie theater? Since you never know when a shooter could appear, I guess you gotta bring your gun everywhere, right? The mall? Your workplace? Public swimming pool? It's paranoia and absolutism from the hard right and gun supporters. Gun control laws are lax enough, don't need to make it worse. Cool, you just stated yourself the US government can do whatever they want with the American people, something they should not be allowed to do or be in a position to do at all yet we want to give up our rights to own guns. Are people really that afraid that some psycho is going to shoot you tomorrow when you go out to the point where you want to give up your rights in the false sense that you're going to be safer? Chances of that happening are so low it is not worth giving up any rights at all for. Probably have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. Seriously? Of course the government can do whatever they want to this country. WILL they do it? Hell no. The backlash of declaring something like marshal law throughout the country and seizing guns for no apparent reason would be huge and devastating. While the chances of something like this happening are low, it doesn't matter. 12 lives were lost in that shooting. Don't forget the Virginia Tech and NIU shootings as well. People DIED in those shootings. If limiting the freedom of firearms helps limit these occurrences, I'm all for it. Seriously? And how many people do you think have been saved by use of firearms through self defense? This isn't about limiting civilian firearms, it's getting rid of it COMPLETELY for GOOD if Obama signs the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. "Limit these occurences" like how or what? They already RARELY happen in the first place and if you study any history of Man, people have always been killing each other throughtout history. It's something that you're going to have to accept. Also by the way, what backlash would their be if the government declared Marshal Law and immediately expended all of your rights? Oh yea, there wouldn't be any backlash because you'd have a mass of unarmed civilians against an armed government. Good luck. And how many nameless incidents have occured where someone was shot over something that wasn't self-defense? Going to tell you right now that after living in the city of Chicago for 20 years and hearing news reports on almost every single news broadcast such as some little 9 year old girl playing in her basement getting killed by a stay bullet, that this city alone will outnumber the amount of situations in which guns have saved lives. What backlash? Not sure, possibly the UN getting involved, and the eventual collapse of being one of the world's strongest powers. Those crimes are comitted because there is widespread poverty there. Someone with a good job who is able to support himself and a family is much less likely to commit a crime than someone who doesn't have that. Fix the economy and poverty and crime rate lowers. Whether you illegalize guns or not, they are still going to get them, or they'll use other means to commit their crimes. Can't blame guns or weapons for poverty.
Regardless of the state of the economy, there will always be desperate+unfortunate people out there. Fixing it won't magically make gun violence in cities go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
