|
This is in response to Mayson's post.
Most radical transitions from largely accepted accepted cultural norms have ended in failure. Prohibition is the perfect example. The United States has been slowly accepting more and more gun control laws, but has not taken any large step to ban guns nor do I support such an immediate radical change. I do not believe the current gun control laws will have any immediate effect on gun use in crime, but I do hope more gun control legislation will continue to pass and eventually, as a culture, the United States will move away from guns. I believe this hope of mine is naive. I do not see the United States moving away from guns, but this is the tactic various countries have used successfully.
The world has shown a trend, convince your culture guns suck and the problem disappears.
What I propose is slow but continued gun control legislation followed by eventual ban when the culture is ready and accepting if ever.
|
United States24756 Posts
On December 07 2007 11:54 aRod wrote:
The world has shown a trend, convince your culture guns suck and the problem disappears.
What I propose is slow but continued gun control legislation followed by eventual ban when the culture is ready and accepting if ever. Convincing the American people as a whole of anything at all is virtually impossible ._.
This country can't be brought away from Fahrenheit and miles for chrissake. Good luck convincing every family of hunters, target shooters, etc, to discard all of their guns permanently.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your attitude that we shouldn't blindly declare what we should do but rather should progress towards it... which is much better than what many people have proposed earlier. However, I don't think your suggestion is viable in today's USA.
|
So you're in favor of disarming law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? You're effectively supporting legislation that will make it harder for said citizen to defend themselves, their family, their friends, and their property.
I firmly believe that everyone, regardless of who you are, or where you live, has the right to self-preservation by whatever means necessary.
You have the right to self-expression, and I would die to defend your right to be in favor of gun control, but I will never respect such a backwards, unfounded, indefensible point of view.
|
Gun bans are often followed by an increase in crime.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns.
There have been a few in this thread who fronted this fact, but were summarily LOL'd-out by many members. Sad, ignorant, liberal hippies. 
Fucking group-think out the ass.
Unfortunately, the problem is not one-dimensional, and a sweeping ban is not the answer. If that was the pathway to utopia, believe me, I'd be on-board. But it's simply wrong.
|
You said an automatic rifle is not good for home defense because it over penetrates, then why in the fuck are you in favor of letting people get them?, its clearly not the best choice for self defense.
I know supressors arent absolutely quiet, but they do reduce noise and muzzle and that is NOT a fucking attribute you should give a flying fuck when you are defending your house from a buglar shooting.
Do you think its important the dB of your gun when you are shooting an armed man?, fucking hipocrit stop making up bullshit to defend your stupid belief.
If you support automatic rifles and sound supressors its simply because you like guns, and you see them as recreationals, but let me bring you some news here buddy.... your fucking recreation is not worth the lifes of others.
And yes weapons does cost lives, as i said its a fact they generate more accidental deaths than the deaths they prevent... the chances that your little kid finds a way to play with the gun are much greater than the chances some psycho breaks into your house and for some rason instead of just robbing shoots you in the face -_-.
And stop talking bullshit about crime deterent because you clearly saw the crime comparition in Texas so stfu.
PS: just to make it clear so u know im not just some hippy gun hater... i LOVE gun, i absolutely adore shooting and ive hunted several times, i owned more than one gun but i still believe my recreation is no more important than other's people lives unlike you asshole.
|
Exactly.
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people happy and willing to throw their rights out the windows. You can point out to them how criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws, but then they still say that gun control would keep them from getting guns. But criminals, by definition do not follow the laws.
It's absolutely disgusting how many people in this country are completely incapable of thinking for themselves. It's about time people woke up and realized that the popular media is for-profit, and will do what is necessary to create profit. They are not there to tell you the news; there are there to attract your attention and make money off of it.
Wake up, and stop throwing your rights away.
|
On December 07 2007 12:25 HeadBangaa wrote:Gun bans are often followed by an increase in crime.If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. There have been a few in this thread who fronted this fact, but were summarily LOL'd-out by many members. Sad, ignorant, liberal hippies. Fucking group-think out the ass. Unfortunately, the problem is not one-dimensional, and a sweeping ban is not the answer. If that was the pathway to utopia, believe me, I'd be on-board. But it's simply wrong.
source of gtfo of th thread -_-
If you outlaw the guns and restrict the manufactors to provide only to army & police you can track down every single piece made efficiently.
Mainly because if somebody shows up with a post X date gun, you will trace it back from the smugglers wich will be either police or the army and heads will roll so the only option left is to smuggle weapons from Mexico or overseas wich makes getting a gun much much harder.
Learn by example ffs, the USA has a ridiculous gun murder rate why do you think that is?
Oh sorry its the niggers not the guns... like somebody else said -_-
|
On December 07 2007 12:30 Mayson wrote:
Exactly.
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people happy and willing to throw their rights out the windows. You can point out to them how criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws, but then they still say that gun control would keep them from getting guns. But criminals, by definition do not follow the laws.
It's absolutely disgusting how many people in this country are completely incapable of thinking for themselves. It's about time people woke up and realized that the popular media is for-profit, and will do what is necessary to create profit. They are not there to tell you the news; there are there to attract your attention and make money off of it.
Wake up, and stop throwing your rights away. so in your words, wanting better gun control is not thinking for yourself? oh wait should i be thinking for myself by just listening to everything you say and saying "yea that's right!!" you're the retard who brought hitler up in a gun control argument, i don't think you should be crying about independent thought
this thread is garbage
|
On December 07 2007 12:19 Mayson wrote:
So you're in favor of disarming law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? You're effectively supporting legislation that will make it harder for said citizen to defend themselves, their family, their friends, and their property.
I firmly believe that everyone, regardless of who you are, or where you live, has the right to self-preservation by whatever means necessary.
You have the right to self-expression, and I would die to defend your right to be in favor of gun control, but I will never respect such a backwards, unfounded, indefensible point of view.
So If I could save myself by killing you this would be fine? What about killing you and your family? What about nuking say... your home town to preserve my life? Ok, this example is extreme, but self preservation isn't always ethical. What I'm saying is people will die from guns if we keep them, people will die from guns if we get rid of them. Innocents will die either way. The question, from my point of view, is what will kill less people in the long run. This is the most ethical course of action. I hate getting into this sort of philosophical ethics, but you forced my hand.
See, I do not support legislation that will take away people's right to defend themselves nor even the immediate abolition of guns in the United States. Please stop assuming what I believe, I give you this courtesy. What I do support is certain gun control policy such as cool down time legislation, clip number legislation etc... I support moving away from guns, reducing their number, and convincing the majority of our culture that they suck. This will not happen immediately with America's demographics. Don't expect this. Cultural changes come very slowly if ever, but if you look at trends, gun control is on the rise.
|
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
You said an automatic rifle is not good for home defense because it over penetrates, then why in the fuck are you in favor of letting people get them?, its clearly not the best choice for self defense. I never said it was the best choice. The reason I'm in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to legally obtain assault rifles is because they're not the ones misusing them.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
I know supressors arent absolutely quiet, but they do reduce noise and muzzle and that is NOT a fucking attribute you should give a flying fuck when you are defending your house from a buglar shooting. When I'm standing in a small hallway taking shots at an armed intruder, the 150 decibel report of a gun being shot less than three feet away from my ears is similar to a flashbang grenade going off in front of your head. The lower the audible report of a gunshot, the easier it is to stay oriented.
If that's not of concern in a self-defense situation, I'm not sure what is.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
Do you think its important the dB of your gun when you are shooting an armed man?, fucking hipocrit stop making up bullshit to defend your stupid belief. I'm not a hypocrit.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
If you support automatic rifles and sound supressors its simply because you like guns, and you see them as recreationals, but let me bring you some news here buddy.... your fucking recreation is not worth the lifes of others. I'm a law-abiding citizen; I'm not the one taking lives.
Maybe it's about time you learned the distinction between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Let me help you: law-abiding citizens don't murder, rape, and rob people. Criminals do.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
And yes weapons does cost lives, as i said its a fact they generate more accidental deaths than the deaths they prevent... the chances that your little kid finds a way to play with the gun are much greater than the chances some psycho breaks into your house and for some rason instead of just robbing shoots you in the face -_-. That's not a fact at all. Kellerman's 43:1 ratio that you keep referencing so freely is irrelevant, as he fails to prove anything statistically significant. There is an estimated 1,500,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) every year according to the Department of Justice, while there is an estimated 600 deaths from accidental shootings every year, as opposed to an estimated 3,900 deaths from accidental drownings, an estimated 3,600 deaths per year from fires, and an estimated 3,400 deaths from suffocations according to the National Safety Council.
It would appear you're just another sheep who believes the Brady campaign.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
And stop talking bullshit about crime deterent because you clearly saw the crime comparition in Texas so stfu. If that sentence made any sense, I could respond to it.
On December 07 2007 12:28 baal wrote:
PS: just to make it clear so u know im not just some hippy gun hater... i LOVE gun, i absolutely adore shooting and ive hunted several times, i owned more than one gun but i still believe my recreation is no more important than other's people lives unlike you asshole. That point makes no sense. Again, you seem to have a firm belief that the presence of a firearm will result in injury for no apparent reason. Right--and cars are the reason for DUIs.
"Baaa" goes the sheep.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
baal most guns are not purchased legally.. or even within the country. You cant track something that is intended to not be tracked.. or if you do, you wont catch them all... as is evident by history and the present day rofl.
Making firearms illegal would only keep the people who are generally law abiding citizens disarmed. This would reduce the availability which would greatly reduce crimes of passion that involve guns (although I would argue people would grab whatever is available like a knife [this would still reduce the amount of mass killing possible]). However the perception that you are now the only armed person (the criminal) and everyone else is defenseless (this means store owners) I would feel a LOT more powerful with my pistol and be a LOT more likely to rob someone or kill multiple people knowing I am in no immediate danger. The statistics Headbangaa refers to are true, I have heard of them as well. I dont care to go google it but I am sure someone following me will.
Anyways this arguement has been stated and restated too many times. Believe me, I wish this world was one where people didnt feel the need to defend their lives or the lives of their loved ones but unfortunately we do. Look at Sean Taylor, very recent.
|
On December 07 2007 12:33 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 12:25 HeadBangaa wrote:Gun bans are often followed by an increase in crime.If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws have guns. There have been a few in this thread who fronted this fact, but were summarily LOL'd-out by many members. Sad, ignorant, liberal hippies. Fucking group-think out the ass. Unfortunately, the problem is not one-dimensional, and a sweeping ban is not the answer. If that was the pathway to utopia, believe me, I'd be on-board. But it's simply wrong. source of gtfo of th thread -_-
Wow you really need sources? Do you live under a rock by any chance?
Here, one of MANY google results:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html
The website is a ".org"; probably a special interest group. But it references objective studies.
An excerpt for you:
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
If you outlaw the guns and restrict the manufactors to provide only to army & police you can track down every single piece made efficiently.
A ridiculous claim.
Even if it were true, it does not prevent illegal weapons ownership. The black market created by gun control is analogous to that created by the drug war.
Anyways, at best, every time a civilian is murdered, if the weapon is found, and if it's registration numbers are intact, and if it is domestically originated, then yeah, a trace would be possible. But that's not a proactive/preventative strategy at all; it's cleanup.
Mainly because if somebody shows up with a post X date gun, you will trace it back from the smugglers wich will be either police or the army and heads will roll so the only option left is to smuggle weapons from Mexico or overseas wich makes getting a gun much much harder.
I doubt the military would take part in investigating civilian felonies?
Learn by example ffs, the USA has a ridiculous gun murder rate why do you think that is?
Poisonous culture. Honestly.
Oh sorry its the niggers not the guns... like somebody else said -_-
No comment 
|
On December 07 2007 12:40 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 12:19 Mayson wrote:
So you're in favor of disarming law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? You're effectively supporting legislation that will make it harder for said citizen to defend themselves, their family, their friends, and their property.
I firmly believe that everyone, regardless of who you are, or where you live, has the right to self-preservation by whatever means necessary.
You have the right to self-expression, and I would die to defend your right to be in favor of gun control, but I will never respect such a backwards, unfounded, indefensible point of view. So If I could save myself by killing you this would be fine? What about killing you and your family? What about nuking say... your home town to preserve my life? Ok, this example is extreme, but self preservation isn't always ethical. What I'm saying is people will die from guns if we keep them, people will die from guns if we get rid of them. Innocents will die either way. The question, from my point of view, is what will kill less people in the long run. This is the most ethical course of action. I hate getting into this sort of philosophical ethics, but you forced my hand. See, I do not support legislation that will take away people's right to defend themselves nor even the immediate abolition of guns in the United States. Please stop assuming what I believe, I give you this courtesy. What I do support is certain gun control policy such as cool down time legislation, clip number legislation etc... I support moving away from guns, reducing their number, and convincing the majority of our culture that they suck. This will not happen immediately with America's demographics. Don't expect this. Cultural changes come very slowly if ever, but if you look at trends, gun control is on the rise. If I was directly threatening your life, it would be both morally and legally correct for you to negate the threat.
What will kill less people in the long run is for criminals to never put law-abiding citizens like myself in the position where I'd be forced to defend myself with deadly force. I do not consider killing a criminal in self-defense to be killing a person. I do not value the life of a criminal above my own.
Stop suggesting that owning a gun is somehow the cause of problems. Guns have never been the problem. The problem always was the behavior of criminals; they persistently put others in danger, whether it be home invasions, assaults, rape, murder, armed robbery, carjacking, etc.
Their behavior will not be stopped by gun control, and trying to convince an entire culture that they can't defend themselves with the tools that allow them to do so effectively will never work.
Gun control didn't work in England, it hasn't worked in D.C., and it won't work--period.
|
FuDDx
United States5014 Posts
im sorry but i havent read the thread yet other than firstpage.But my first thoughts other than why give him the attention he wanted ,yes some dicapline is good for kids and kids are given to much freedom and rewards just for being there not for excelling these days.but the most important thing is does baal not sound like Rosie O'donal(sp?)
|
On December 07 2007 12:38 yubee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 12:30 Mayson wrote:
Exactly.
I'm getting a little sick and tired of people happy and willing to throw their rights out the windows. You can point out to them how criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws, but then they still say that gun control would keep them from getting guns. But criminals, by definition do not follow the laws.
It's absolutely disgusting how many people in this country are completely incapable of thinking for themselves. It's about time people woke up and realized that the popular media is for-profit, and will do what is necessary to create profit. They are not there to tell you the news; there are there to attract your attention and make money off of it.
Wake up, and stop throwing your rights away. so in your words, wanting better gun control is not thinking for yourself? oh wait should i be thinking for myself by just listening to everything you say and saying "yea that's right!!" you're the retard who brought hitler up in a gun control argument, i don't think you should be crying about independent thought this thread is garbage Nothing in that post makes any sense. Thanks for taking my comments completely out of context, not reading with any comprehension whatsoever, and then acting immaturely.
If you had any education on world history whatsoever, you would understand why gun control worked for Hitler, Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin, Idi Armin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il.
But you don't, so you're going to perpetually mis-quote everything anyone says, and then proclaim that the thread is "garbage," as if you've demonstrated intelligence worthy of being in a position to judge much of anything, much less pass judgment on anything.
|
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws [Table I] concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
* When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
* After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
* New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
|
I want to point out that cultural change does happen. For instance, Slavery. Before Slavery was ok, but now not so cool... Women voting. Before women voting = wtf. Now women voting = ok. Guns have been much more stubborn when it comes to leaving the United States. We were behind Europe on abolition of slavery, women voting etc. and we are behind on guns. I believe in about 150 years we will catch up.
Sadly the nationalism associated with supporting the constitution translates to loving guns for many Americans. We are one of the only countries with any reference to fire arms in our constitution. This is one of the reasons we will remain attached to them
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I like you Mayson, live strong.
|
Slavery and not allowing women to vote qualify as discrimination, which any civilized society will denounce. The right to self-preservation is a right most anyone would agree is inherent and implicit. The are not the same; they cannot be compared equally.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On December 07 2007 12:55 aRod wrote:
I want to point out that cultural change does happen. For instance, Slavery. Before Slavery was ok, but now not so cool... Women voting. Before women voting = wtf. Now women voting = ok. Guns have been much more stubborn when it comes to leaving the United States. We were behind Europe on abolition of slavery, women voting etc. and we are behind on guns. I believe in about 150 years we will catch up.
Sadly the nationalism associated with supporting the constitution translates to loving guns for many Americans. We are one of the only countries with any reference to fire arms in our constitution. This is one of the reasons we will remain attached to them
If it were specifically in the constitution that women shouldnt vote and slaves should be owned I would bet they would have been more stubborn to change this as well. But they would have.. because unlike gun control laws women/black people being treated like human beings or at least equals is logical and the way it should be. Owning a gun doesnt make you less of a human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
