|
On December 10 2007 04:09 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 03:51 Mayson wrote:
Your ideas on cultural drift are part of your own personal agenda. I think you're one of those people who advocates non-violence (which is fine--I'm not attacking that). However, please try to leave your own personal agenda out of this.
God damn it man, you did it again. You IGNORED the crux of my post. I said very specifically "The European example is your biggest obstacle in the gun control debate." You failed to address why the USA should not advocate a transition to this culture. It produces reduced murder rates and crime rates. You're not talking to a wall here. I'm about to give up debating with you. Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 03:51 Mayson wrote:
- If we're talking about maxing out ammunition, we'd be talking hundreds of rounds. Whether someone has to reload a couple more times or not makes little difference. It doesn't take a full minute to reload. It only takes a couple of seconds.
In those couple of seconds Mayson, someone could get the fuck out of there saving a life. ONE life makes a huge difference.
ROFL. Hey man, I wouldn't pop a vein over what Mayson is doing. he has been trying to drown legitimate arguments from other posters with an ocean of his non-sense.
I'm off to watch some football.
|
|
|
Is mayson still posting? wow... i figured this would have ended days ago
just skimmed through dont know if anyone said this yet but basically...
you are under the assumption that by having a firearm you will be able to protect yourself, that is hardly ever the case. most of these situations take place when normal citizens are caught COMPLETELY off guard. if someone comes into a dining hall blasting rounds from an AK-47, good luck taking out your measly handgun to prevent him or her from killing people. it's going to happen either way as long as firearms are in production and available in the quantities they are now. if you want to argue that less would die, well yes thats a plausible argument except for the fact that almost no civilian has any experience firing a weapon while being fired at and good luck when it comes down to crunch time (handgun vs AK-47). just because u have a gun doesnt make you safe, if you cant see that then you are blind. safer? maybe, but only slightly.
i don't want some asshole redneck taking out his gun when we get into a traffic accident. but, this is what you want because you want everyone to have a gun as you stated earlier in this thread. this is ridiculous and demonstrates you have no real world experience in dealing with people. if you leave your computer for a little while you will realize that 10k+ people more would die every year if everyone had a gun rather than getting rid of them completely. just imagine the bar fights over a girl while a few guidos are hopped up on jager...
odds are you are an 18 year old nerd in his first year of college trying to make intelligent arguments but youve never left your computer and spent time in the real world.
you act like your existence on this planet is in danger by not owning a firearm... that is just silly. either move out of compton or enroll in the nearest mental institution you troll.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
Why do people answer to FakeSteve? He's not here to discuss lol.
|
On December 10 2007 04:14 Mayson wrote:The European example is intellectual fraud. I posted earlier why there is no way to prove statistical significance using examples from foreign countries. This "cultural change" you actively seek is not a part of gun control. That's your own personal wish for the country. I agree that seconds make a difference. That's why I take my own self-preservation seriously, and don't rely on the police. Try reading this: http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.htmlIt might give you better insight into why an armed society is a safe society.
America has been armed since the revolution and we are NOT SAFER THAN European countries who have banned hand guns. The suggestion that an armed society is a safer society is delusional. Get over your rhetoric.
You site site the European example as intellectual fraud as not being statistically significant, and I can honestly say that is the biggest load of ___ I have ever heard. The reduced European crime rates and murder rates are lucid. You can't argue with then so you dismiss them again. This seems to be a trend with your debating skills.
You say "cultural change" "is not a part of gun control." This is inherently wrong. Europes CULTURE has influence their GUN CONTROL POLICY. How can you say culture doesn't influence gun control? Your logic is so backwards, your failure to concede earned points makes it obvious Mayson. You are trolling.
|
On December 10 2007 04:15 qgart wrote:
ROFL. Hey man, I wouldn't pop a vein over what Mayson is doing. he has been trying to drown legitimate arguments from other posters with an ocean of his non-sense.
I'm off to watch some football.
Yeah you're right. Mayson has repeatedly revealed himself to be a troll. I'm done here.
|
Edit: Triple-post; please delete.
|
Edit: Triple-post; please delete.
|
Trolls don't cite sources. Nice try.
If it helps you feel better to call me a troll, then so be it.
On December 10 2007 04:36 LostDevil wrote:
Is mayson still posting? wow... i figured this would have ended days ago
just skimmed through dont know if anyone said this yet but basically...
you are under the assumption that by having a firearm you will be able to protect yourself, that is hardly ever the case. most of these situations take place when normal citizens are caught COMPLETELY off guard. if someone comes into a dining hall blasting rounds from an AK-47, good luck taking out your measly handgun to prevent him or her from killing people. it's going to happen either way as long as firearms are in production and available in the quantities they are now. if you want to argue that less would die, well yes thats a plausible argument except for the fact that almost no civilian has any experience firing a weapon while being fired at and good luck when it comes down to crunch time (handgun vs AK-47). just because u have a gun doesnt make you safe, if you cant see that then you are blind. safer? maybe, but only slightly.
i don't want some asshole redneck taking out his gun when we get into a traffic accident. but, this is what you want because you want everyone to have a gun as you stated earlier in this thread. this is ridiculous and demonstrates you have no real world experience in dealing with people. if you leave your computer for a little while you will realize that 10k+ people more would die every year if everyone had a gun rather than getting rid of them completely. just imagine the bar fights over a girl while a few guidos are hopped up on jager...
odds are you are an 18 year old nerd in his first year of college trying to make intelligent arguments but youve never left your computer and spent time in the real world.
you act like your existence on this planet is in danger by not owning a firearm... that is just silly. either move out of compton or enroll in the nearest mental institution you troll.
Sources, please.
I just linked to you the FBI, DOJ, and NCS facts disproving you. Then you call me a troll.
On December 10 2007 04:44 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 04:14 Mayson wrote:The European example is intellectual fraud. I posted earlier why there is no way to prove statistical significance using examples from foreign countries. This "cultural change" you actively seek is not a part of gun control. That's your own personal wish for the country. I agree that seconds make a difference. That's why I take my own self-preservation seriously, and don't rely on the police. Try reading this: http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.htmlIt might give you better insight into why an armed society is a safe society. America has been armed since the revolution and we are NOT SAFER THAN European countries who have banned hand guns. The suggestion that an armed society is a safer society is delusional. Get over your rhetoric. You site site the European example as intellectual fraud as not being statistically significant, and I can honestly say that is the biggest load of ___ I have ever heard. The reduced European crime rates and murder rates are lucid. You can't argue with then so you dismiss them again. This seems to be a trend with your debating skills. You say "cultural change" "is not a part of gun control." This is inherently wrong. Europes CULTURE has influence their GUN CONTROL POLICY. How can you say culture doesn't influence gun control? Your logic is so backwards, your failure to concede earned points makes is obvious Mayson. You are trolling. I'm not trolling.
I refuse to accept that another country's policy, that you didn't cite, was successful, which you didn't cite, and that the US would have the same result, despite the fact that comparing two samples not representative of the same population and deriving causational relationships when mere correlations present between inherently confounded variables present is intellectual fraud.
|
On December 10 2007 05:01 Mayson wrote:
Trolls don't cite sources. Nice try.
If it helps you feel better to call me a troll, then so be it. you dodge every legitimate counterpoint. that is trolling
and "it worked for hitler" is not a good rebuttal
|
I haven't seen many legitimate counterpoints. Servolisk is the only one here that's really presented any sources, changed my mind slightly on a few things, and I learned quite a bit from his points. You have not done the same.
A thought in someone's head is not inherently legitimate. Opinions are based on emotion, which is irrational thought induced by chemicals in the brain.
I've repeatedly cited sources, formed logical conclusions from said sources, and presented in a very straight-forward manner.
People respond with their own opinions, claim their are "legitimate counterpoints," and then call me a troll despite their lack of commitment to proving their point using applicable laws, statistics, and figures.
I laid out my figures. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.
|
shutup mayson you complete idiot
|
My ideas for effective gun laws:
Regarding the legal sale, ownership, transferral, etc.:
- Minimum age of 18 to buy, 13 to own (i.e. father/son hunting together)
- License required to own
- Class required for license to own
- Minimum age of 21 to carry
- License required to carry
- Class required for license to carry
- BATFE paperwork required for non-hunting firearms or firearms intended for self-defense or home-defense (lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, shotguns, handguns) including, but not limited to, pistols, revolvers, semi-automatic rifles, fully-automatic rifles
(This means that the sale of handguns to kept in the home is legal without a license to carry, but requires a license to own. Possession of a license to own plus proof of age allows the sale purchase of firearms not restricted by the BATFE.)
Regarding illegal sale, ownership, transferral, etc.:
- Caught with illegal firearm: mandatory 10 year jail sentence
- Caught with illegal concealed firearm: mandatory 15 year jail sentence
- FFLs caught selling illegally: revocation of FFL, mandatory 10 year jail sentence
- Caught selling illegally: mandatory 15 year jail sentence
- Possession of legal firearm while under the influence: revocation of license
- Possession of illegal firearm while under the influence: mandatory 1 year jail sentence
(Jail sentences to be added in addition to other charges, and are open for discussion with regards to length.)
(Citing ATF statistics that firearms obtained by criminals through: illegal sale directly from corrupt FFLs, straw purchases, theft, sale from firearms traffickers [who typically acquire firearms to resell from corrupt FFLs])
You don't have to take firearms away from people that aren't causing the problems in order to have effective laws.
I'd like some feedback on my ideas, if you guys are willing.
|
On December 10 2007 05:22 MarklarMarklar wrote:
shutup mayson you complete idiot Troll!
|
10 years for an illegal firearm? more than grand theft auto? don't you think that's a bit harsh?
|
Yes, I do.
(Those numbers are open to negotiation.)
Do you feel a shorter/longer sentence would be more appropriate? Maybe five years instead of 10?
I'm not ignorant enough to think that jail sentences are a deterrent to criminals. If it was, people wouldn't commit murders in states where capital punishment is common, but they still do.
I feel that the sentence would instead remove a criminal from society long enough to maybe where when they get out, they won't be so stupid as to repeat the same crime.
Clarification: mandatory jail sentences are not meant to deter crime; they are meant to remove criminals from society when caught for a substantial amount of time.
|
United States24745 Posts
On December 10 2007 05:41 Mayson wrote:
Yes, I do.
(Those numbers are open to negotiation.)
Do you feel a shorter/longer sentence would be more appropriate? Maybe five years instead of 10?
I'm not ignorant enough to think that jail sentences are a deterrent to criminals. If it was, people wouldn't commit murders in states where capital punishment is common, but they still do.
I feel that the sentence would instead remove a criminal from society long enough to maybe where when they get out, they won't be so stupid as to repeat the same crime.
Clarification: mandatory jail sentences are not meant to deter crime; they are meant to remove criminals from society when caught for a substantial amount of time. I don't think it makes sense for illegally carrying/owning firearms to hold similar penalties to illegally selling them. How you want to fix that is up to you.
By the way, you should really change your signature if you want people to take you seriously. Even though I often agree with your points I can't side with you when you equate gun law advocates to people who don't mind if women get raped (even if you think there is a causal relationship).
|
Point taken about my signature. Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Again, mandatory jail sentences are open for debate. I just threw numbers out there.
|
you're the troll, cause you've ignored arguements/statistics during the entire thread
so shut the fuck up you shit
|
I'm politely requesting that you respond in a civil manner. I've cited sources to back up what I've said. You're the one calling me names; not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
