Apparently this 19 year old, Robert Hawkins- who was taking drugs for depression and ADHD got fired from McDonalds and his GF dumped him and decided to grab an ak-47 (not before planting grenades around previously) and start blasting people in a mall in Nebraska (9 dead, 3 critically wounded)). He left an emo note that said a few things and ended with "now I'll be famous".
Wonder if that Anti-video gaming lawyer Jack Thompson has got wind of this yet.
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: Too bad there weren't any brave civilians carrying concealed in that mall. There might be nine people alive to enjoy the holidays with their families.
I'd like to thank the media for giving this fuckbag of an adolescent the drama he was seeking.
Its a double edged sword. I mean everyone has the right to know but maybe people wouldn't do this kind of thing if they knew it wouldn't be on the news.
People will be idiots regardless of the news; but when a shooter goes down in a violent ending such as this, they know what they're getting in the end.
This adolescent has already been called the "victim" and a "lost puppy" by his landlady. That absolutely disgusts me. He wasn't the victim; the nine people he killed are the victims.
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: Too bad there weren't any brave civilians carrying concealed in that mall. There might be nine people alive to enjoy the holidays with their families.
Too bad a civilian can posses a fucking high power automatic rifle and hand grenades.
Yep, we have the right to defend ourselves, what if a buglar breaks into my house!, i think we will all agree that the best way to deal with it is to toss a few grenades in the "blind" spots like counterstike and if he didnt die rush with our AK47.
-_-
Its a shame another 10 had to die... but hey atleast a ignorant redneck asshole has the freedom to shoot some cans with his massive gun colection.
On December 06 2007 19:49 Mayson wrote: People will be idiots regardless of the news; but when a shooter goes down in a violent ending such as this, they know what they're getting in the end.
This adolescent has already been called the "victim" and a "lost puppy" by his landlady. That absolutely disgusts me. He wasn't the victim; the nine people he killed are the victims.
I completely disagree with u. People, like animals, their main objective is survival. And if the environment (the society) has made this living being go against its nature and wanting to die, then in my opinion he would be a victim as well.
Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
i dear say its the money it generates for pharmaceutical companies nowadays, you can't leave your house without being bombarded by 'are hou depressed?' or some sign questioning your health. Before people just put up with it and moved on, now everything has a 'cure'
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
I think it's because parent's don't beat their kids enough and children are taught that they are special and that their thoughts and views are more important than everybody else's. It leaves them with an extremely bloated sense of self worth and entitlement.
Then it all blows up in their face as the real world shows them what they're really worth. Realizing that you're a pathetic waste of skin is a hard pill to swallow.
Beat your kids people. It's for their own good.
EDIT: There is a huge difference between physical discipline and physical abuse by the way.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
On December 06 2007 20:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I think it's because parent's don't beat their kids enough and children are taught that they are special and that their thoughts and views are more important than everybody else's. It leaves them with an extremely bloated sense of self worth and entitlement.
Then it all blows up in their face as the real world shows them what they're really worth. Realizing that you're a pathetic waste of skin is a hard pill to swallow.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
Yes obviously the reason more people die is because they dont take care of their guns properly duh.... but if something that is supoused to STOP deaths is actually causing more... then common sense says WTF... that shit aint working, lets not do it.
On December 06 2007 20:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I think it's because parent's don't beat their kids enough and children are taught that they are special and that their thoughts and views are more important than everybody else's. It leaves them with an extremely bloated sense of self worth and entitlement.
Then it all blows up in their face as the real world shows them what they're really worth. Realizing that you're a pathetic waste of skin is a hard pill to swallow. Beat your kids people. It's for their own good.
EDIT: There is a huge difference between physical discipline and physical abuse by the way.
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
Not to derail the thread or anything but hes talking about the kind of shit that was used post 9/11 in 1999. Everyone was afraid of terrorists and shit and they allowed all this war crap to happen because of it. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists believe in this stuff so much.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
Yes obviously the reason more people die is because they dont take care of their guns properly duh.... but if something that is supoused to STOP deaths is actually causing more... then common sense says WTF... that shit aint working, lets not do it.
No, you don't ban something because a few idiots fuck it up. Besides with all the America bashing (us being stupid) maybe its better that these stupid asses kill themselves and others.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
Please enlighten us baal with how the world works, obviously you were not beat as a child. You cant just end with such a broad statement. I choose to place the blame on bush... why you say? Because there were no emo kids before he came into office thats why.
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
Not to derail the thread or anything but hes talking about the kind of shit that was used post 9/11 in 1999. Everyone was afraid of terrorists and shit and they allowed all this war crap to happen because of it. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists believe in this stuff so much.
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
Not to derail the thread or anything but hes talking about the kind of shit that was used post 9/11 in 1999. Everyone was afraid of terrorists and shit and they allowed all this war crap to happen because of it. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists believe in this stuff so much.
1999 ?
Oh, well the movie came out in 2002 but the shooting took place in 1999. Not sure when the interview took place though. Nevermind it if I'm wrong.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
Please enlighten us baal with how the world works, obviously you were not beat as a child. You cant just end with such a broad statement. I choose to place the blame on bush... why you say? Because there were no emo kids before he came into office thats why.
you are really lol i don't even know what to say to that. what kind of ridiculous argument is that and how do you even support that
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
Not to derail the thread or anything but hes talking about the kind of shit that was used post 9/11 in 1999. Everyone was afraid of terrorists and shit and they allowed all this war crap to happen because of it. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists believe in this stuff so much.
1999 ?
Oh, well the movie came out in 2002 but the shooting took place in 1999. Not sure when the interview took place though. Nevermind it if I'm wrong.
i suppose the overall message is, you can't sedate todays problems with drugs - be it weed or anti-depressents
I can't believe the retards talking about beating kids being acceptable...wtf are you smoking? If you can't teach discipline without having to use your hands for beating, you suck man. Bigtime.
Im sad that this thread is even made, i was hoping that people didn't need public opinion to know if what this kid did was right or wrong or funny. Just beat your kids stfu (and also keep a 45 around incase the 4th Reich is reined in or some insane robber with a knife or gun comes at you), and maybe just maybe the next generation will be better... Only in America.
On December 06 2007 20:12 Plexa wrote: enter one of; - fuck george bush - fuck NRA - fuck rednecks - its society's fault - witty comment
its shit like this which depresses me -.-; oh and don't forget the followup drama thats associated with this shit. I'm reminded of bowling for columbine, well more precisely marilyn manson, why can we have more people like him =[
Not to derail the thread or anything but hes talking about the kind of shit that was used post 9/11 in 1999. Everyone was afraid of terrorists and shit and they allowed all this war crap to happen because of it. Its no wonder conspiracy theorists believe in this stuff so much.
Anti-consumerism isnt something new. Try Karl Marx, 19th century.
On December 06 2007 20:57 Naib wrote: I can't believe the retards talking about beating kids being acceptable...wtf are you smoking? If you can't teach discipline without having to use your hands for beating, you suck man. Bigtime.
On December 06 2007 20:57 Naib wrote: I can't believe the retards talking about beating kids being acceptable...wtf are you smoking? If you can't teach discipline without having to use your hands for beating, you suck man. Bigtime.
I didn't say acceptable. I said necessary.
My mother (who graduates into calculated moments of insanity every now and then) still physically attacks me when I am in my twenties. Is it all right if I slug her one to show her discipline?
The point is, I was as more reasonable than her at 12 as I am at 22. She clobbered me then because I was weaker and I can clobber her now because I am stronger. It would be nice if force were linked to powers of reason and virtue, but most of the time force is used for no better reason than someone being stronger than someone else.
On December 06 2007 20:57 Naib wrote: I can't believe the retards talking about beating kids being acceptable...wtf are you smoking? If you can't teach discipline without having to use your hands for beating, you suck man. Bigtime.
I didn't say acceptable. I said necessary.
Then you're even worse and your nick fits you well. Have fun in your further life, retard.
I dunno, maybe it's because weapons are illegal here, or maybe it's because we're being taught that world is a violent and harsh place from day one. I may have an elitist view (I don't really know too well how the less lucky people end up here, I kinda study in the best university) but in the medium I belong to, you're shit when you apply for McDonald's, not when you get fired. I have a feeling that there's a large problem with low-age education in USA and with how parents treat their kids (with all that career rushing, feminine "rights" and mothers caring for their children less than their jobs, with drugs being looked upon as a normal solution to unstable emotional states, with individualism-instead-of-knowledge-focused school education and many other things). Most americans I know in person all perform well in social-oriented tasks, speeches and stuff like that, but are very naive and somewhat crude when it comes to simple real-life situations like violence, relationship and social failure. Again, I don't want to put a mark on all americans judging from the few I know (and there's a huge bulk of black people I know nearly nothing about), but methinks the things I've described above could point to the reasons of why such incidents happen. My most dazzling impression of USA was a woman in the D.C. subway asking me if she may sit next to me. I was so shocked (I mean wtf, the spot is unoccupied, just sit there) that I didn't understand her question at first - I could hear all the words separately but couldn't link them together to make any kind of sense. On another note, when I entered school high classes, my parents explicitly told me that I was on my own from than on, and that shit would happen and I should be ready to handle it by myself.
Btw, Marx wasn't anti-consumerist. A consumer society is an end of 20'th century-borne term, Marx outlined the key problems of uncontrolled capitalism, and, despite labeling him a communism ideologist, pretty much every government adopted laws concerning labor and worker rights that deal precisely with the problems Marx outlined.
EDIT: In fact, I may have been lying abit - such incidents took place in Russia, but not in schools or malls, but in the army. This is because russian army is a giant piece of bullshit where humiliation and unofficial physical discipline is a normal thing. It would've even been acceptable had it served the purpose of increasing the fighting potential, but russian army is weak and useless. Guess what russian army does to men on a physical scale, american society does on psychological.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
It's actually a very interesting and complex problem.
Some sociologists blame the actual society, while some blame tv/media and computer games.
The guy was suffering from ADHD, and the main cause for ADHD (was proven through tests) is watching TV and spending much time on the computer.
What is known for the actual society to lack, one of it's major deficiences, is the social justice (which is in no way related to formal justice).
And another part of people blame the familly and the new education typology (which in fact has changed over the last decades) for weakening the individual and presenting him the "way" of a normal life (from the parent's and media's perspective) that when it's not reached tends to make people very mad which usually leads to drug addicts/criminals/suicides etc.
It's funny when people say beating kids is the way to prevent these days. If that was true, then why do you reckon that Korea, famous for beating its kids, has produced so many shooters in the past? (Not just Cho Seung-Hui, there have been many others). Whether or not a violent upbringing is beneficial to the child depends almost entirely on the child's personality - it is impossible to make gross generalizations like "beating your kid is better" or "spoiling them is better".
As for the gun debate, I still haven't quite made up my mind about it, but one must note that one of the world's worst gun massacres (which happened in Korea, where purchasing and keeping guns is extremely hard for normal citizens) was committed by a police man who had free reign walking into people's houses and shooting the defenseless citizens, exercising the great power he had as a governemnt employee. Gun debate is such a highly complex and politically motivated topic that people rarely get the whole picture.
I guess all societies that have a high level of "cilivity" and tech growth experience outbreaks of free will in shape of suicide and people shooting in the streets for no apparent reason. It could be some form of subconscious protest against a society where everything goes "too well". Afaik, Korea is one of the most tech-influenced countries in the world. Teenagers just find themselves living in an absolutely unnatural medium where their prime instincts hardly find any exit.
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: Too bad there weren't any brave civilians carrying concealed in that mall. There might be nine people alive to enjoy the holidays with their families.
I'd like to thank the media for giving this fuckbag of an adolescent the drama he was seeking.
I highly doubt anyone rocking a glock is gonna go up against someone with an AK and grenades....
speaking of which, how the fuck did he get those? I'm quite sure those aren't legal..
On December 06 2007 20:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: I think it's because parent's don't beat their kids enough and children are taught that they are special and that their thoughts and views are more important than everybody else's. It leaves them with an extremely bloated sense of self worth and entitlement.
Then it all blows up in their face as the real world shows them what they're really worth. Realizing that you're a pathetic waste of skin is a hard pill to swallow.
Beat your kids people. It's for their own good.
EDIT: There is a huge difference between physical discipline and physical abuse by the way.
Not having a dig at you, I probably will give my kids a smack or two when they step out of line. But really, is that the only way to teach a kid their significance in the world?
how the fuck did he get an AK-47 ............ AND THEN.............. GRENADES!?!?!?!
if 19 year olds can get glocks and berettas then yea damn im scared but not -that- scared. i dont understand how this kid is able to purchase or steal an AK-47, then have it in his room, and no one the fuck noticed? i mean that shit fires 7.62 x 39 rounds. in other words BIG FUCKING BULLETS.
sad day. sad day...
oh and i totally see how TL.net is gona be able to turn this one into a child psychology/wats wrong with society/my country is better than your country debate with each post hitting quad digits word count.
Nah, they are based on a 1999 "medical devices deaths" stats (which was an estimate between 48-90k/year), plus they are even lying about it saying it is 120k - of note - medical devices end up killing patients that would generally be otherwise been dead without them in the first place e.g. guy is on hemodialysis 15 years and dies in the end from a hemodialysis complication (say hepatitis c just to name one) because he can't get kidney transplant - or say another example - guy who has massive heart attack, needs a coronary artery angioplasty with stent placement or he dies, gets one, and dies - ya the failed angioplsty/stent is counted as cause of death in these stats (but what they don't mention is that only 2-4% fail, 96-98% succeed in saving the life or that the real cause of death is massive MI) etc.. I am not going to go into the number of people those medical devices actually save (like cardioversion, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis etc.. ) that dwarfs the number of deaths there will be without them.
This study was picked up by the main media back then, distorted and exaggerated, and there was a major backlash for hospitals and doctors in general, who instead of whining about how misleading and unfair the media used that study the medical field as a group tried to increase their efficiency, and implemented a bunch of double checking and fail safety systems/protocols etc.. (which of course implies a shit load of more work too). Anyway however wrong and misleading those stats were used by the media and insurance companies the medical field made the best of it.
Notice how the count only the "accidental guns" deaths - of course they exclude all the intentional gun deaths such as school killing sprees, cop and civilians seaths from guns used by criminals, gang related gun deaths etc etc..
Anyway - in other words those stats at rense.com are utter bullshit - even the death from guns one.
It stands to reason that in every society, every culture, you're going to have fucked up people and they don't have to be sociopaths, they could be seemingly normal people who snap and are unable to cope when shit hits the fan. We're seeing it more and more across the world so don't give us that "stupid violent Americans" crap.
The more pertinent issue is how he got the weapons in the first place. It's impossible to stop fuckjobs from existing, it's a much easier task to stop them from acquiring firearms.
Not through legal means... which makes me wonder why some people are going to suggest stricter gun laws.
Right, it's not relevant to this case but I think it's still fair to question the legitimacy of the second amendment and our gun laws at all times. People are going to use any link, weak or strong, to bring up the issue.
Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
yeah gee wiz if only i could feel safe knowing that every person had a gun on them at all times to save their own ass
edit: you know what, forget the sarcasm, it will be lost on your redneck ass. everyone having a fucking gun would only result in situations escalating needlessly, not "evening the odds to save their own ass". what teenage girl in a mall is going to pull out a piece and shoot some crazy kid with an AK and grenades? how about grandma and her six shooter?how about we let everyone in the mall carry AKs and grenades, that would even the odds even more right?
i've seen a lot of dumb confrontations between drunk people, and i'd personally prefer that neither of them were carrying concealed firearms, rather than someone getting shot in the face
If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection.
"for self defense" ya right, i've never seen any sprees like this get stopped by someone carrying a gun, doesn't seem to be especially effective in comparison to the probability of crimes being commited with them instead. You fuckheads probably dont even know how high your murder rate per capita is; in comparison to nations with banned or extremely restricted use of guns that is.
pro gun yanks are fucking backwards, the goal should be a world without guns, not a world where everyone have one for "self defense".
On December 06 2007 21:34 BluzMan wrote: My most dazzling impression of USA was a woman in the D.C. subway asking me if she may sit next to me. I was so shocked (I mean wtf, the spot is unoccupied, just sit there) that I didn't understand her question at first - I could hear all the words separately but couldn't link them together to make any kind of sense.
That's perfectly normal behavior to me. T_T
It's polite, she didn't know if anyone else might be sitting there already but got up for a second, and we have it ingrained into us to respect the space of others... it would be 'wierd' if someone just suddenly sat down right next unless there were literally no other seats available, and even then I'd still be expected some sort of greeting (May I sit here? is a form of greeting IMO).
The people involved in school/teenage shootings generally aren't criminals before then. Do you really think a 16 year old is going to have access to the avenues for a gun that an organized criminal has?
Since you like playing extreme hypothetical, what if your concealed weapon hero is a bad shot and hits a bystander? Vigilante justice always seems awesome until someone misses.
But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives.
Oh? Last time I checked I was a Libertarian and card carrying ACLU member. Yeah, we really love when the government tells us how to live. The fact of the matter is the second amendment is horribly misinterpreted, any constitutional historian can tell you that. It's about allowing well organized militias to purchase guns (which were illegal to own) because the government didn't have the money to. Since the 1903 Militia Act, it's in reference to the National Guard, not private militias which had been ineffective in the Spanish-American war. Arming our National Guard is no longer a financial problem for our government, thus the amendment is irrelevant, and it certainly has nothing to do with arming private citizens.
And "but Thomas Jefferson said blah blah Right of the People to abolish blah blah." He meant you should vote, not shoot people, dumbass.
On December 06 2007 23:15 MarklarMarklar wrote: crazy yanks with their pro gun bullshit.
"for self defense" ya right, i've never seen any sprees like this get stopped by someone carrying a gun, doesn't seem to be especially effective in comparison to the probability of crimes being commited with them instead. You fuckheads probably dont even know how high your murder rate per capita is; in comparison to nations with banned or extremely restricted use of guns that is.
pro gun yanks are fucking backwards, the goal should be a world without guns, not a world where everyone have one for "self defense".
CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A HORRIBLE FUCKING WORLD
So you think gun control laws are going to stop those planning a mass killing spree from getting guns? Kid, listen to what I have already said. Grenades are ILLEGAL. BANNED. You are not supposed to be able to buy them, yet this kid had them anyway. Do you mean to tell me that if guns were illegal, he wouldn't have one of those either? Give me a break, please.
Jibba: If you have the avenues to purchase Marijuana illegally, then you also have the avenues to purchase a gun illegally. It REALLY isn't hard at all to purchase something illegally if you have every intention of doing so. Something tells me this kid would have had the intentions. But if you don't believe me, I could probably show you. It is probably easier for me to buy a gram of marijuana, or an unregistered handgun, than it is for me to buy alcohol.
Obviously a world without guns would be IDEAL, but you can never stop people from making guns, and as long as people make guns, people are going to be able to get them. It's common sense. If you could completely be rid of guns, sure, by all means do so. But unless you have some magical idea to rid the ENTIRE WORLD of guns, then the best thing to do it to at least even the odds between criminals/murderers and regular people, so that you don't have one kid with an AK-47 vs 200 unarmed civilians, which is what we in America call a "massacre".
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
Yes obviously the reason more people die is because they dont take care of their guns properly duh.... but if something that is supoused to STOP deaths is actually causing more... then common sense says WTF... that shit aint working, lets not do it.
No, you don't ban something because a few idiots fuck it up. Besides with all the America bashing (us being stupid) maybe its better that these stupid asses kill themselves and others.
its a device suppousedly fabricated and owned to SAVE lifes... when that object produces more accidental deaths than the ones it prevents you shouldnt continue using that method to save lifes and switch to another.
Yes its because people fuck up... but its not like "people fuck up while driving and die", a car is a transportation vehicle... a gun is a "safety" device that gives anything but safety.
So yeah Jerry Mcgwire wouldnt be able to posses a gun only to save the life of the dummies who leave their gun unlocked but we are sure Jerry mcgwire can deter a buglar with a taser, a bat or some non-lethal weapon -.-
If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
On December 06 2007 20:45 snes.tq wrote: Please enlighten us baal with how the world works, obviously you were not beat as a child. You cant just end with such a broad statement. I choose to place the blame on bush... why you say? Because there were no emo kids before he came into office thats why.
What do i need to explain? the 1st amendment gave the peple the right to bear arms so that they could defend themselves from the government and start a revolution if it was necesary.
Today that law is outdated because a few thousand renecks and a bunch of gangs of new york are not going to start an armed revolution defeating the US army ffs, do i really need to explain why its not going to happen?
On December 06 2007 20:45 snes.tq wrote: Please enlighten us baal with how the world works, obviously you were not beat as a child. You cant just end with such a broad statement. I choose to place the blame on bush... why you say? Because there were no emo kids before he came into office thats why.
What do i need to explain? the 1st amendment gave the peple the right to bear arms so that they could defend themselves from the government and start a revolution if it was necesary.
Today that law is outdated because a few thousand renecks and a bunch of gangs of new york are not going to start an armed revolution defeating the US army ffs, do i really need to explain why its not going to happen?
Shows how much you know...it was the second amendment, not the first. Next time please take the 20 seconds to do a little research before posting something ridiculous.
sigh, this is sad. They should have emo rage detectors at all the doors to public buildings, anyone who registers too high, gets zapped. /part gonna go invent it...
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
you mean people would be afraid to commit crimes because it's likely some peace-loving law-abiding citizen would murder them in the act? bullshit
again, it would just escalate the situation and result in more deaths than is necessary
Shows how much you know...it was the second amendment, not the first. Next time please take the 20 seconds to do a little research before posting something ridiculous.
wow good fucking job captain america, he's still right
On December 06 2007 23:39 Hawk wrote: Don't you have to be 18 to legally purchase one anyway?
anyway, didnt say it before, RIP
wait, anyone whos 18 or older can legally buy AK-47?? holy shit.. any idea how he got it? just buying the rifle and grenades off of black market must have been expensive as hell, and he just got fired at McDonalds :O
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
If somebody tries to steal your car with a gun and u dont have a gun, you will loose your car.
I dont know about you but i rather loose my car than taking a huge risk of dying there.
--------------------
If you think people owning guns are a deterent for robberies and stuff let me tell you that is NOT true, just see Texas (the state that owns most guns obv) murder and crime rate, research it, its not helping at all (i wont put source because i saw it a while ago).
Another point is that people think "if we ban guns we wont have guns but bad guys will get their guns on the black market anyway".... that is partially true.
That would happen only with a poor gun regulation, but right now the factories are producing thousands and thousands of guns and ammo so its extremely easy to slip guns into the black market.
If you absolutely control in the most anal way gun production only destined to police and army... and make a super estrict serial branding you would pretty much stop any black market (besides overseas or from the mexican border).
And yeah its impossible to keep track of all the guns given to the army, but lets just say the police recovers a gun that belongs to the army, you trace that gun back to where it belongs and the heads will start to roll, its a system that works if its strictly regulated, and that would disminish the crime rate, accidental deaths and these shootings.
On December 06 2007 23:39 Hawk wrote: Don't you have to be 18 to legally purchase one anyway?
anyway, didnt say it before, RIP
wait, anyone whos 18 or older can legally buy AK-47?? holy shit.. any idea how he got it? just buying the rifle and grenades off of black market must have been expensive as hell, and he just got fired at McDonalds :O
yes you can, even on the internet u can fill ur form and no they are not expensive they are ridiculously cheap........ actually SCARY cheap.
PS: who the fuck cares if its the 1st or the 2nd for fucks sake -.- way to derail my flawless logic into childish bullshit like "it shows how much you know".
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
are you kidding me? you're telling me a carjacker is going to legitimately weigh in the risk/reward ratio of stealing a car? these aren't people with great common sense, they're carjackers for a reason
On December 06 2007 23:39 Hawk wrote: Don't you have to be 18 to legally purchase one anyway?
anyway, didnt say it before, RIP
wait, anyone whos 18 or older can legally buy AK-47?? holy shit.. any idea how he got it? just buying the rifle and grenades off of black market must have been expensive as hell, and he just got fired at McDonalds :O
nah, im talkin about 18 to purchase a gun. i was under the imrpession that assault rifles were kinda illegal lol
Well I think we as a society need to be more accepting of the homosexual community. When we resist integration, it causes stress on the seams of society, and those seams are these mentally unstable kids. If we could just accept things the way they are, we wouldn't have to worry about extreme stress pressuring down on our weakest.
Once again, another public shooting in america. Once again, americans try to argue that their retarded gun laws have nothing to do with the shooing Once again, the world laughs at the stupidity of these people and waits for the next shooting.
This post may sound like I think its funny that people got killed. I DO NOT think that. It is a terrible tragedy. However I do think it is funny that people can be soo blindly ignorant. If you cannot see that your countries gun laws ARE the reason there are soo many shootings, then you deserve to be the next one shot.
On December 07 2007 00:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Well I think we as a society need to be more accepting of the homosexual community. When we resist integration, it causes stress on the seams of society, and those seams are these mentally unstable kids. If we could just accept things the way they are, we wouldn't have to worry about extreme stress pressuring down on our weakest.
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
Please read ALL my post before replying ffs.
this is what i said previously:
If you think people owning guns are a deterent for robberies and stuff let me tell you that is NOT true, just see Texas (the state that owns most guns obv) murder and crime rate, research it, its not helping at all (i wont put source because i saw it a while ago).
You are delutional if you think a few more peple owning guns will deter crime, its also stupid to carry a gun if u dont plan to use it as u said lol wtf... then whats the point.
Actually in your fanasy world if every single person carried a gun, it would be a super safe world... well one thing is certain, armed robberies would go down, (they will still steal it while you are asleep... or they will rob your hosue when nobody is in... like 90% of the cases).... but mother fucking shit... i wouldnt want to get into a fender bender or get into a drunken bar fight in that fantasy world of yours.
On December 07 2007 00:11 Fen wrote: If you cannot see that your countries gun laws ARE the reason there are soo many shootings, then you deserve to be the next one shot.
At least our court system has come farther along than that. And your post is really really bad. It says nothing for the argument that gun control is the problem. It's just stating "Fen thinks the problem is gun control." But on top of that, Fen wishes death upon those who don't understand or don't agree with what Fen states. And that just discredits Fen completely.
the u.s. is stupid. get rid of gun ownership. look at japan's low rate of crime. the 2nd amendment was written for fear of government tyranny which has 0% of happening here.
On December 07 2007 00:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Well I think we as a society need to be more accepting of the homosexual community. When we resist integration, it causes stress on the seams of society, and those seams are these mentally unstable kids. If we could just accept things the way they are, we wouldn't have to worry about extreme stress pressuring down on our weakest.
did i miss osmething or am i just being romanian?
Well I figure everyone is going to pick their favorite ginormous social problem and make bad attempts at conclusively linking the causes of this school shooting to the social problem. So I just picked my favorite hot topic and made a three sentence argument.
According to TL.net, the causes are... --Gun laws --Parental discipline --Mental illness (and all its causes) --Homophobes
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
If you think people owning guns are a deterent for robberies and stuff let me tell you that is NOT true, just see Texas (the state that owns most guns obv) murder and crime rate, research it, its not helping at all (i wont put source because i saw it a while ago).
You are delutional if you think a few more peple owning guns will deter crime, its also stupid to carry a gun if u dont plan to use it as u said lol wtf... then whats the point.
Actually in your fanasy world if every single person carried a gun, it would be a super safe world... well one thing is certain, armed robberies would go down, (they will still steal it while you are asleep... or they will rob your hosue when nobody is in... like 90% of the cases).... but mother fucking shit... i wouldnt want to get into a fender bender or get into a drunken bar fight in that fantasy world of yours.
That last line is my biggest concern. A lot of people are hot headed and wanna act like badasses.
I'm ok with guns at home/work for protection. The background checks should be insane though... don't want no crazies getting their hands on a gun. Carrying concealed weapons is just gonna lead to problems though.
On December 07 2007 00:11 NonY[rC] wrote: Well I think we as a society need to be more accepting of the homosexual community. When we resist integration, it causes stress on the seams of society, and those seams are these mentally unstable kids. If we could just accept things the way they are, we wouldn't have to worry about extreme stress pressuring down on our weakest.
did i miss osmething or am i just being romanian?
Well I figure everyone is going to pick their favorite ginormous social problem and make bad attempts at conclusively linking the causes of this school shooting to the social problem. So I just picked my favorite hot topic and made a three sentence argument.
According to TL.net, the causes are... --Gun laws --Parental discipline --Mental illness (and all its causes) --Homophobes
How about this: I think the health care system that we have in general is to blame. The last time I went into the doctors office for a 'general health' visit, He checked my weight and height and asked me how I felt. I tried to get in some questions, but he just left, and I paid my copay and left. Everything in this country is either self-diagnosed or poorly diagnosed. For instance: teachers in this country are friggin' boring. If not for my parents, who in their wisdom REFUSED to have me put on Ritalin, who knows where I would be today, as the teachers where I was going to school were pushing to get all of the bored kids on the crap, calling us all ADD. My parents sat in on some of the classes and were bored out of their wits.
Further, how often does a doctor bring up diet and how it can effect mental chemistry. Heck, I had suicidal tendencies up until the time that I went Vegan, and then you could say that it 'miraculously' stopped. It wasn't a miracle, of course, its that I finally had balanced brain chemistry for the first time ever, I was getting all of the nutrients that I needed but was missing because I was too focused on meat in my fruit and vegetable-low diet. Now, there are studies that prove this (see the link in the OP), but did any doctor tell me that? No, of course not. Until our health care system is focused on prevention (saving money) rather than profit (making money), the entire system is busted.
I think most people who killed someone accidentally or on purpose bought the gun for protection. The intention of the purchase of a gun has mostly no relation to the way it is used. I bet most guns are in possesion of the killers for yearsbefore they used it. A legal gunmarket has leaks to the illegal world. Another reason to ban civilian selling of guns. IMO gun ownership causes way more harm then it prevents.
On December 06 2007 20:57 Naib wrote: I can't believe the retards talking about beating kids being acceptable...wtf are you smoking? If you can't teach discipline without having to use your hands for beating, you suck man. Bigtime.
I didn't say acceptable. I said necessary.
My mother (who graduates into calculated moments of insanity every now and then) still physically attacks me when I am in my twenties. Is it all right if I slug her one to show her discipline?
The point is, I was as more reasonable than her at 12 as I am at 22. She clobbered me then because I was weaker and I can clobber her now because I am stronger. It would be nice if force were linked to powers of reason and virtue, but most of the time force is used for no better reason than someone being stronger than someone else.
huk kids aren't little adults. i don't see anything wrong with an occasional spank if it's appropriate.
parents who still do that when their kid is 20, that's the parent's problem, but it's also a whole nother issue.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
LOL That was the dumbest comparison I've ever read ever. I can kill you with any gun. Guns are designed to injure and kill people. They don't protect you. They hurt people. "That's like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning." LOL. OKAY!
On December 07 2007 00:55 Hawk wrote: are you guys proposing a total ban on guns? ie: cant even use for hunting purposes?
The argument can be made that most of the guns you see in these shootings are anything but hunting-grade weapons. So it\'s not as though a ban can\'t be made on automatic weapons and handguns without it affecting hunters and their precious rifles.
But then again, if that\'s what is necessary to curb the ridiculous levels of gun violence going on, then I\'d definately be in favor of getting rid of any and all guns. Hell, bow-hunting is a better sport than standard hunting anyways.
On December 07 2007 00:55 Hawk wrote: are you guys proposing a total ban on guns? ie: cant even use for hunting purposes?
The argument can be made that most of the guns you see in these shootings are anything but hunting-grade weapons. So it\'s not as though a ban can\'t be made on automatic weapons and handguns without it affecting hunters and their precious rifles.
But then again, if that\'s what is necessary to curb the ridiculous levels of gun violence going on, then I\'d definately be in favor of getting rid of any and all guns. Hell, bow-hunting is a better sport than standard hunting anyways.
Yeah, it's def not hunting rilfes they are using =p. I just got the impression here from non-americans that they wanted *all* guns banned. But yeah, bow hunting puts hair on your chest, no doubt lol.
On December 07 2007 00:55 Hawk wrote: are you guys proposing a total ban on guns? ie: cant even use for hunting purposes?
Guns for hunting purposes is legal all over the world, however you wont kill 10 persons with a hunting rifle since it fires to slow and you wont carry it around unnoticed.
Its pistols (Since the only reason to use a pistol over a rifle is to conceal it) and automatic rifles (You dont need to shoot 30 times in 10 seconds to kill rabbits) that are outlawed exept on the police and military.
Since there are so few high lethal guns out there its very easy to control them, and the only source is from corrupt states were the guns are traded freely. I mean, its not like your average joe can make automatic rifles on his own, the factories needs to be somewere.
I mean, the US producing a million pistols each year that noone have to smuggle into the country and are completely legal can't have any effect on how many criminals with guns in the US can they? And then pistols have no other use than to kill people...
If people honestly don't believe that the USA pumping weapons into the system year after year makes no difference on gun related crimes compared to most european states were no such things are ever sold legally to the public.
A result of a gunban would be no more recreational hunting with guns. Fact is any sane person could go nuts. A cop can go nuts without people seeing the signs, but they need to carry a gun. That is a calculated risk. Crossbow hunting would be allowed with a permit. The only hunters allowed to use huntingrifles would be proffessionals who control overpopulaion of wildlife.
Yeah there is no reason to ban hunting weapons, its illogical to believe some gangster is going to steal a car with a winchester... i would still regulate it much more than it is now.
I live 5 minutes from the Westroads mall. When my girlfriend saw the name she talked about what he was like in school before she graduated and such.. and she didn't seem too surprised that its him.
On December 06 2007 23:41 Lazerflip! wrote: So you think gun control laws are going to stop those planning a mass killing spree from getting guns? Kid, listen to what I have already said. Grenades are ILLEGAL. BANNED. You are not supposed to be able to buy them, yet this kid had them anyway. Do you mean to tell me that if guns were illegal, he wouldn't have one of those either? Give me a break, please.
Look at Europe as an example. Most gun crime in Europe occurs amongst people who are willingly involved in crime - i.e., criminals or just shady characters. There will be gangs and criminals shooting each other but rarely (or at least significantly less than in America) do ordinary citizens have the need to shoot each other up. Look at Canada as an example too - the argument for self-defense goes out the window because you are not defending yourself against other guns. If someone breaks into your house, the odds are heavily in the favor of him not being armed. The burglary in question can be prevented by a good alarm system - no need for anyone to get killed.
Why isn't he armed? He isn't armed because there are less guns on the street and it is much, much more difficult for him to get a gun than it would be in the US. Sure, there are illegal weapons on the street but they are mostly in the hands of hardcore criminals, not some run of the mill burglar and NOT SOME ANGRY TEENAGER AT A MALL.
Have guns, as self-defense and a deterent for crime, actually helped the crime figures in the US? Of course not. People aren't going to avoid a break-in out of fear that the home-owner has a gun. Instead he is more likely to attempt the break-in because he has a gun.
Yeah, it's not a solution in any way, shape, or form, but it won't hurt. Still, much of gun-crime is committed with illegal weapons. But many of these illegal guns are 'legal guns' taken from ordinary citizens who felt the need to own handguns. Like you said, you can't stop people from making guns, but you can make it an issue of supply and demand. Less guns available makes it harder for someone to get a gun on a whim. Prohibition is often used as a supportive argument for how a gun-ban simply wouldn't work. Yes, people could still get whiskey into the country, but it's undeniable that less people were getting drunk.
It's not a total solution, and barely a partial one. But getting rid of guns in law is only the first, small step. The real work comes in removing the guns already out there and dealing with guns coming in from out of the country. Hell, stop throwing so much money at the 'war on drugs' and focus on something more noteworthy. The right laws in place give law enforcement the power to get guns out of the hands of a large amount of common criminals. It's not 100%, obviously, but it's not 0% either.
Jibba: If you have the avenues to purchase Marijuana illegally, then you also have the avenues to purchase a gun illegally. It REALLY isn't hard at all to purchase something illegally if you have every intention of doing so. Something tells me this kid would have had the intentions. But if you don't believe me, I could probably show you. It is probably easier for me to buy a gram of marijuana, or an unregistered handgun, than it is for me to buy alcohol.
You're comparing the growing of a plant - something I can do in my bedroom closet, with the large scale manufacturing of firearms?
But you know, it's also easier for you to get a registered gun than some alcohol. That's as much a statement of societal values as it is on the ease of acquiring illegal goods.
Obviously a world without guns would be IDEAL, but you can never stop people from making guns, and as long as people make guns, people are going to be able to get them. It's common sense. If you could completely be rid of guns, sure, by all means do so. But unless you have some magical idea to rid the ENTIRE WORLD of guns, then the best thing to do it to at least even the odds between criminals/murderers and regular people, so that you don't have one kid with an AK-47 vs 200 unarmed civilians, which is what we in America call a "massacre".
So then why are we always talking about America when we're talking about gun-crime? The ability to get illegal weapons imported is no greater in the US than it is in any other country. So let's look at what is different - and that is the amount of normal people who feel the need to own guns. You have a gun market that is absolutely flooded with product and it's your own silly laws that have made it that way.
Don't talk about evening the odds unless you can show that ordinary citizens owning guns leads to less home-invasions, less robberies, and less gun-related murders.
On December 07 2007 00:11 Fen wrote: If you cannot see that your countries gun laws ARE the reason there are soo many shootings, then you deserve to be the next one shot.
At least our court system has come farther along than that. And your post is really really bad. It says nothing for the argument that gun control is the problem. It's just stating "Fen thinks the problem is gun control." But on top of that, Fen wishes death upon those who don't understand or don't agree with what Fen states. And that just discredits Fen completely.
Well that actually summed it up pretty nicely. My post doesnt seek to justify why gun control is a problem, you can look at statistics for that. It doesnt seek to remedy anything, thats something the american people need to do. And while I dont wish death upon those who dont see the problem with everyone owning a gun, I do think that if they were shot at the mall by a lunatic who just happend to have an assult rifle, they might reconsider their opinon.
Either way, I believe it is a problem with the ease of access to guns. Whether you agree with me or not doesnt matter, I'll be happily walking in public without fear of being shot throughout the years to come.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
2nd Amendment ;>>
Also....wtf...hand grenades....where the fuck did he get those?!
I havent read most of this thread, but I assume there's some massive anti-gun law argument going on. All I have to say is that the founding fathers of America assumed the general will of the public would be good enough to stop these unfortunate disasters such as this one by giving everyone guns.
On December 07 2007 01:50 Meta wrote: I havent read most of this thread, but I assume there's some massive anti-gun law argument going on. All I have to say is that the founding fathers of America assumed the general will of the public would be good enough to stop these unfortunate disasters such as this one by giving everyone guns.
Also, they were using guns that took 5 hours to reload.
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: Too bad there weren't any brave civilians carrying concealed in that mall. There might be nine people alive to enjoy the holidays with their families.
Too bad a civilian can posses a fucking high power automatic rifle and hand grenades.
Yep, we have the right to defend ourselves, what if a buglar breaks into my house!, i think we will all agree that the best way to deal with it is to toss a few grenades in the "blind" spots like counterstike and if he didnt die rush with our AK47.
-_-
Its a shame another 10 had to die... but hey atleast a ignorant redneck asshole has the freedom to shoot some cans with his massive gun colection.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa goes the sheep.
You haven't said one truthful thing aside from "we have the right to defend ourselves."
You can't own an assault rifle easily, and hand grenades are completely illegal. Besides, you don't use a rifle for home- or self-defense because of over-penetration, and the accompanying legal liability.
Next time, think before you click "Post." I'm noticing a pattern in your behavior where you exaggerate everything, and then pass it off as accurate.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
It's also hard to effectively defend yourself when people want to ban the equipment to do so.
Criminals, by definition don't follow the law. Citizens do. Banning guns leaves citizens unarmed against those who aren't going to follow the laws anyway.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
Yes obviously the reason more people die is because they dont take care of their guns properly duh.... but if something that is supoused to STOP deaths is actually causing more... then common sense says WTF... that shit aint working, lets not do it.
Actually, it does work, and quite effectively.
The higher concentration of legally-owned firearms in a given area, the lower the crime rate. Whne legislation is passed that gives private citizens to match the firepower and weaponry available to criminals, crime rates go down.
Stop listening to the Brady campaign already.
On December 06 2007 22:29 pyrogenetix wrote: how the fuck did he get an AK-47 ............ AND THEN.............. GRENADES!?!?!?!
if 19 year olds can get glocks and berettas then yea damn im scared but not -that- scared. i dont understand how this kid is able to purchase or steal an AK-47, then have it in his room, and no one the fuck noticed? i mean that shit fires 7.62 x 39 rounds. in other words BIG FUCKING BULLETS.
sad day. sad day...
oh and i totally see how TL.net is gona be able to turn this one into a child psychology/wats wrong with society/my country is better than your country debate with each post hitting quad digits word count.
It's mostly because people somehow think that criminals are bound by laws.
Obviously, they are not. He got them because he was determined. I don't break the law, so I have no idea how he got an AK-47 and hand grenades.
On December 06 2007 21:54 Dariush wrote: Watching TV and time spent on computer is not common only in USA...
The problem is something else.
How in the hell did he get a hold on AK47 ?
Not through legal means... which makes me wonder why some people are going to suggest stricter gun laws.
DING DING DING! We have a winner.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
Well, we can't have a second winner, but you're completely correct.
In my state, I can't own an assault rifle, or anything fun. Hell, some pistols are banned because of the trigger pull weight.
The point is this: a legally-owned pistol, assault rifle, etc., is of no threat to public safety until it's being used by a criminal.
You have to have a clean record, no history of any mental problems, and so forth. You have to pay the ATF a considerable about of money to look over your application.
It'd be easier, and cheaper, to obtain one illegally. But then again, only criminals do that.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
yeah gee wiz if only i could feel safe knowing that every person had a gun on them at all times to save their own ass
edit: you know what, forget the sarcasm, it will be lost on your redneck ass. everyone having a fucking gun would only result in situations escalating needlessly, not "evening the odds to save their own ass". what teenage girl in a mall is going to pull out a piece and shoot some crazy kid with an AK and grenades? how about grandma and her six shooter?how about we let everyone in the mall carry AKs and grenades, that would even the odds even more right?
i've seen a lot of dumb confrontations between drunk people, and i'd personally prefer that neither of them were carrying concealed firearms, rather than someone getting shot in the face
If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection.
and wtf is this wild wild west? you are a moron
Hey, imagine that: everything you said was wrong.
It's good to know you prefer a disarmed, and helpless population unable to do anything about any threat.
Do you know how many people in the US carry a concealed weapon on their person on a daily basis? Thousands per state.
Guess how often those people are involved in a crime? Let me put it this way: the crime rates, facts, and statistics show you're safer surrounded by a bunch of private citizens legally carrying concealed weapons than one criminal.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Remember that someday when your life is being directly threatened, and you can't do anything because you don't want to be a cowboy. I guess you value the life of a criminal over your own.
But I guess that's just natural selection at work.
On December 06 2007 23:15 MarklarMarklar wrote: crazy yanks with their pro gun bullshit.
"for self defense" ya right, i've never seen any sprees like this get stopped by someone carrying a gun, doesn't seem to be especially effective in comparison to the probability of crimes being commited with them instead. You fuckheads probably dont even know how high your murder rate per capita is; in comparison to nations with banned or extremely restricted use of guns that is.
pro gun yanks are fucking backwards, the goal should be a world without guns, not a world where everyone have one for "self defense".
CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A HORRIBLE FUCKING WORLD
I agree. The world should be a world without guns, as a disarmed population is much easier to control.
It worked for Hitler. Good things those Jews couldn't defend themselves!
Oh, and I do know how high the murder rate per capita is. It's higher where guns are banned.
On December 06 2007 23:33 Jibba wrote: The people involved in school/teenage shootings generally aren't criminals before then. Do you really think a 16 year old is going to have access to the avenues for a gun that an organized criminal has?
Since you like playing extreme hypothetical, what if your concealed weapon hero is a bad shot and hits a bystander? Vigilante justice always seems awesome until someone misses.
But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives.
Oh? Last time I checked I was a Libertarian and card carrying ACLU member. Yeah, we really love when the government tells us how to live. The fact of the matter is the second amendment is horribly misinterpreted, any constitutional historian can tell you that. It's about allowing well organized militias to purchase guns (which were illegal to own) because the government didn't have the money to. Since the 1903 Militia Act, it's in reference to the National Guard, not private militias which had been ineffective in the Spanish-American war. Arming our National Guard is no longer a financial problem for our government, thus the amendment is irrelevant, and it certainly has nothing to do with arming private citizens.
And "but Thomas Jefferson said blah blah Right of the People to abolish blah blah." He meant you should vote, not shoot people, dumbass.
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Oh, and the Supreme Court decided the 2nd Amendment applies to private citizens. Too bad.
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
Please read ALL my post before replying ffs.
this is what i said previously:
If you think people owning guns are a deterent for robberies and stuff let me tell you that is NOT true, just see Texas (the state that owns most guns obv) murder and crime rate, research it, its not helping at all (i wont put source because i saw it a while ago).
You are delutional if you think a few more peple owning guns will deter crime, its also stupid to carry a gun if u dont plan to use it as u said lol wtf... then whats the point.
Actually in your fanasy world if every single person carried a gun, it would be a super safe world... well one thing is certain, armed robberies would go down, (they will still steal it while you are asleep... or they will rob your hosue when nobody is in... like 90% of the cases).... but mother fucking shit... i wouldnt want to get into a fender bender or get into a drunken bar fight in that fantasy world of yours.
That last line is my biggest concern. A lot of people are hot headed and wanna act like badasses.
I'm ok with guns at home/work for protection. The background checks should be insane though... don't want no crazies getting their hands on a gun. Carrying concealed weapons is just gonna lead to problems though.
Really? For years it's been legal in an overwhelmingly large majority of states in the US, and it hasn't caused any problems.
The mount of misinformation in this thread is astounding.
Yeah moron, if everyone carried guns like you want them to, then next time you get into a bar fight, you could die instead of getting roughed up. Road rage? People are fucking nuts here in New Jersey on the road. I certainly wouldn't want some idiot pulling a gun on another person cuz he got flipped off.
Mayson, if its information you want to provide than do so by providing actual unbiased statistics from reputable studies. Until then I will not listen to your self centered babbling/
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
yeah gee wiz if only i could feel safe knowing that every person had a gun on them at all times to save their own ass
edit: you know what, forget the sarcasm, it will be lost on your redneck ass. everyone having a fucking gun would only result in situations escalating needlessly, not "evening the odds to save their own ass". what teenage girl in a mall is going to pull out a piece and shoot some crazy kid with an AK and grenades? how about grandma and her six shooter?how about we let everyone in the mall carry AKs and grenades, that would even the odds even more right?
i've seen a lot of dumb confrontations between drunk people, and i'd personally prefer that neither of them were carrying concealed firearms, rather than someone getting shot in the face
If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection.
and wtf is this wild wild west? you are a moron
Hey, imagine that: everything you said was wrong.
It's good to know you prefer a disarmed, and helpless population unable to do anything about any threat.
Do you know how many people in the US carry a concealed weapon on their person on a daily basis? Thousands per state.
Guess how often those people are involved in a crime? Let me put it this way: the crime rates, facts, and statistics show you're safer surrounded by a bunch of private citizens legally carrying concealed weapons than one criminal.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Remember that someday when your life is being directly threatened, and you can't do anything because you don't want to be a cowboy. I guess you value the life of a criminal over your own.
But I guess that's just natural selection at work.
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: Too bad there weren't any brave civilians carrying concealed in that mall. There might be nine people alive to enjoy the holidays with their families.
Too bad a civilian can posses a fucking high power automatic rifle and hand grenades.
Yep, we have the right to defend ourselves, what if a buglar breaks into my house!, i think we will all agree that the best way to deal with it is to toss a few grenades in the "blind" spots like counterstike and if he didnt die rush with our AK47.
-_-
Its a shame another 10 had to die... but hey atleast a ignorant redneck asshole has the freedom to shoot some cans with his massive gun colection.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa goes the sheep.
You haven't said one truthful thing aside from "we have the right to defend ourselves."
You can't own an assault rifle easily, and hand grenades are completely illegal. Besides, you don't use a rifle for home- or self-defense because of over-penetration, and the accompanying legal liability.
Next time, think before you click "Post." I'm noticing a pattern in your behavior where you exaggerate everything, and then pass it off as accurate.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
It's also hard to effectively defend yourself when people want to ban the equipment to do so.
Criminals, by definition don't follow the law. Citizens do. Banning guns leaves citizens unarmed against those who aren't going to follow the laws anyway.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
so you suggest a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun lol... yeah those are reaaaally hard to cheat on.
The problem is that only a retard would think you need an AK47 or a hand grenade for self defense!.
also statistically a gun in a house hold causes more death to family that owns it than from buglars, so there is no logical argument backing the possesion of such high powered weapons except the 1st amendment... a document wich clearly talks about the people's right to bear arm to defend from a potentionaly dangerous government (revolution).
however its not fucking 1800, some people with guns cannot overthrow the government of the united states, thats now how the world works anymore the constitution is clearly outdated.
I don't know the laws in Nebraska, but Here in Cali you can't own an automatic weapon.
And about your statistic claim about the burglars and family, Thats because people don't take care of their things properly (or teach their kids etc). That and the fact that its not that likely to have a burglar rob your home (out of millions). Thats like banning golfing because you can get hit by lightning.
Yes obviously the reason more people die is because they dont take care of their guns properly duh.... but if something that is supoused to STOP deaths is actually causing more... then common sense says WTF... that shit aint working, lets not do it.
Actually, it does work, and quite effectively.
The higher concentration of legally-owned firearms in a given area, the lower the crime rate. Whne legislation is passed that gives private citizens to match the firepower and weaponry available to criminals, crime rates go down.
On December 06 2007 22:29 pyrogenetix wrote: how the fuck did he get an AK-47 ............ AND THEN.............. GRENADES!?!?!?!
if 19 year olds can get glocks and berettas then yea damn im scared but not -that- scared. i dont understand how this kid is able to purchase or steal an AK-47, then have it in his room, and no one the fuck noticed? i mean that shit fires 7.62 x 39 rounds. in other words BIG FUCKING BULLETS.
sad day. sad day...
oh and i totally see how TL.net is gona be able to turn this one into a child psychology/wats wrong with society/my country is better than your country debate with each post hitting quad digits word count.
It's mostly because people somehow think that criminals are bound by laws.
Obviously, they are not. He got them because he was determined. I don't break the law, so I have no idea how he got an AK-47 and hand grenades.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
Well, we can't have a second winner, but you're completely correct.
In my state, I can't own an assault rifle, or anything fun. Hell, some pistols are banned because of the trigger pull weight.
The point is this: a legally-owned pistol, assault rifle, etc., is of no threat to public safety until it's being used by a criminal.
You have to have a clean record, no history of any mental problems, and so forth. You have to pay the ATF a considerable about of money to look over your application.
It'd be easier, and cheaper, to obtain one illegally. But then again, only criminals do that.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
yeah gee wiz if only i could feel safe knowing that every person had a gun on them at all times to save their own ass
edit: you know what, forget the sarcasm, it will be lost on your redneck ass. everyone having a fucking gun would only result in situations escalating needlessly, not "evening the odds to save their own ass". what teenage girl in a mall is going to pull out a piece and shoot some crazy kid with an AK and grenades? how about grandma and her six shooter?how about we let everyone in the mall carry AKs and grenades, that would even the odds even more right?
i've seen a lot of dumb confrontations between drunk people, and i'd personally prefer that neither of them were carrying concealed firearms, rather than someone getting shot in the face
If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection.
and wtf is this wild wild west? you are a moron
Hey, imagine that: everything you said was wrong.
It's good to know you prefer a disarmed, and helpless population unable to do anything about any threat.
Do you know how many people in the US carry a concealed weapon on their person on a daily basis? Thousands per state.
Guess how often those people are involved in a crime? Let me put it this way: the crime rates, facts, and statistics show you're safer surrounded by a bunch of private citizens legally carrying concealed weapons than one criminal.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Remember that someday when your life is being directly threatened, and you can't do anything because you don't want to be a cowboy. I guess you value the life of a criminal over your own.
But I guess that's just natural selection at work.
On December 06 2007 23:15 MarklarMarklar wrote: crazy yanks with their pro gun bullshit.
"for self defense" ya right, i've never seen any sprees like this get stopped by someone carrying a gun, doesn't seem to be especially effective in comparison to the probability of crimes being commited with them instead. You fuckheads probably dont even know how high your murder rate per capita is; in comparison to nations with banned or extremely restricted use of guns that is.
pro gun yanks are fucking backwards, the goal should be a world without guns, not a world where everyone have one for "self defense".
CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A HORRIBLE FUCKING WORLD
I agree. The world should be a world without guns, as a disarmed population is much easier to control.
It worked for Hitler. Good things those Jews couldn't defend themselves!
Oh, and I do know how high the murder rate per capita is. It's higher where guns are banned.
On December 06 2007 23:33 Jibba wrote: The people involved in school/teenage shootings generally aren't criminals before then. Do you really think a 16 year old is going to have access to the avenues for a gun that an organized criminal has?
Since you like playing extreme hypothetical, what if your concealed weapon hero is a bad shot and hits a bystander? Vigilante justice always seems awesome until someone misses.
But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives.
Oh? Last time I checked I was a Libertarian and card carrying ACLU member. Yeah, we really love when the government tells us how to live. The fact of the matter is the second amendment is horribly misinterpreted, any constitutional historian can tell you that. It's about allowing well organized militias to purchase guns (which were illegal to own) because the government didn't have the money to. Since the 1903 Militia Act, it's in reference to the National Guard, not private militias which had been ineffective in the Spanish-American war. Arming our National Guard is no longer a financial problem for our government, thus the amendment is irrelevant, and it certainly has nothing to do with arming private citizens.
And "but Thomas Jefferson said blah blah Right of the People to abolish blah blah." He meant you should vote, not shoot people, dumbass.
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Oh, and the Supreme Court decided the 2nd Amendment applies to private citizens. Too bad.
On December 06 2007 23:47 Lazerflip! wrote: If people would take the time to learn to use a gun and respect a gun, it would be an excellent tool to protect yourself and your family. The accidental deaths are due to the fact that there are such asinine restrictions on guns that people treat it as though it's a black market product. If there was more gun safety information available, and more people owned guns and respected them (and knew how to use them properly, as well) someone would be VERY hesitant about robbing a bank, breaking into a house, carjacking someone at gunpoint, etc. because such behavior would be very likely to get them killed.
The thing is, if somebody tries to steal the car from you with a gun, and u also have a gun, chances are that somebody is probably going to die... and it might be you.
You completely missed the point by a mile. It's not about actually killing the guy with your gun, it's about the thought process involved in the guy taking your car; if he was afraid you might have a gun, he is not going to try to carjack you. This is where concealed carry laws come in. It's a deterrent to crime. If he actually DOES carjack you, you obviously don't have to pull out your gun, you can just let him take your car, but if every other person carried a concealed weapon, that person would have to think very long and hard before whipping out a gun and stealing a car, because his risk:reward ratio just changed a whole lot. Rather than looking at a potential stiff jail sentence, he is looking at a very serious risk of death. Many people are willing to risk jail time, that much is evident, but not many people are willing to stare death in the face just to commit a simple crime.
Please read ALL my post before replying ffs.
this is what i said previously:
If you think people owning guns are a deterent for robberies and stuff let me tell you that is NOT true, just see Texas (the state that owns most guns obv) murder and crime rate, research it, its not helping at all (i wont put source because i saw it a while ago).
You are delutional if you think a few more peple owning guns will deter crime, its also stupid to carry a gun if u dont plan to use it as u said lol wtf... then whats the point.
Actually in your fanasy world if every single person carried a gun, it would be a super safe world... well one thing is certain, armed robberies would go down, (they will still steal it while you are asleep... or they will rob your hosue when nobody is in... like 90% of the cases).... but mother fucking shit... i wouldnt want to get into a fender bender or get into a drunken bar fight in that fantasy world of yours.
That last line is my biggest concern. A lot of people are hot headed and wanna act like badasses.
I'm ok with guns at home/work for protection. The background checks should be insane though... don't want no crazies getting their hands on a gun. Carrying concealed weapons is just gonna lead to problems though.
Really? For years it's been legal in an overwhelmingly large majority of states in the US, and it hasn't caused any problems.
The mount of misinformation in this thread is astounding.
i think the biggest flaw is that you see things black and white, you categorize criminals as unhumans, unmoral, and you associate illegal activity with criminals strongly. Maybe once we stop categorizing ourselves, stop using the same punishments/consequences/crticism to criminals in general, we start using our brains and solve the problems at their root this kinda shit wouldnt happen very often. blaming emos and video games wont get us very far.
New York City, New York Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault 8,101,321 687.4 7.0 17.6 300.9 361.9 Property Crime Burglary Larceny Motor vehicle theft 2,113.1 322.2 1,530.8 260.1
New York City, New York Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault 8,101,321 687.4 7.0 17.6 300.9 361.9 Property Crime Burglary Larceny Motor vehicle theft 2,113.1 322.2 1,530.8 260.1
This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal. I have a friend who is a convicted felon, and he owns more guns than I do. You may know that it is illegal for a felon convicted of a violent crime to purchase a firearm, yet he has quite an arsenal. How? There are simply other places than Wal Mart to buy things, and it's very easy to get illegal goods. There are two types of violent crimes involving guns; one type which we are discussing here, the premeditated crime. These usually involve planned shootings motivated by pent-up rage, and are much more likely to be lethal. The other kind are what I like to call "impulse crimes", that is, someone gets a sudden surge of anger for one reason or another and lashes out. These are usually committed by ordinarily law-abiding citizens. It is also unlikely that these crimes will result in murder. Gun control laws MIGHT go some way to prevent, or at least reduce the severity of, impulse crimes. Obviously on an impulse, you will not have time to purchase a gun on the street. But a premeditated act of hate will not be stopped by a mere gun control law; in fact, it will be worsened by the fact that this person will have a gun regardless of laws, and it is almost a virtual GUARANTEE that none of his victims will be armed. So what you have is in essence a slaughter. Using Canada as an example is silly, too, because Canadians are very laid back and there are a LOT less black people in Canada than there are in the USA, and thus less crime. The cities are less foul, too. But I bet if a Canadian really wanted to shoot up the local shopping mall due to his Canadian teenage angst, he would not find it terribly hard to obtain a gun, and the opposition he would meet in committing the act would be laughable at best.
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Right, I said it was irrelevant to this case, but what about the VA Tech shootings? Do you honestly believe a 21/30/50 year old should be able to own an assault rifle?
As for the Supreme Court rulings, when? You really are a nitwit. Supreme Court rulings on the second Amendment primarily cover whether it's designed to be a restriction of the federal government only, or of both the federal government and state government. They ruled that it's the prior, but specifically said:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.
On December 07 2007 01:50 Meta wrote: I havent read most of this thread, but I assume there's some massive anti-gun law argument going on. All I have to say is that the founding fathers of America assumed the general will of the public would be good enough to stop these unfortunate disasters such as this one by giving everyone guns.
Also, they were using guns that took 5 hours to reload.
They took into account that there would be unforseen advancements in the future when they opened the constitution to amendment, and they still opted to legalize guns.
Here allow me to introduce some spaces into your unreadable wall of text.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
I made a post on the last page about how this is a dumb comparison. Feel free to scroll up and read it.
Actually, in reading the rest of your wall of text, I see that every single thing you said was addressed in my previous post, giving me the notion that you don't care to read what anyone says and actually discuss things, but just lay a big turd of an opinion on a message board and carry on your way.
So no point responding I guess.
edit: And Gayson (lulz at pun) dropping the H-bomb instantly discredits his posts - as per internet law
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
Cool d00d. However anyone can grow pot, but it takes a special skill set to manufacture a working handgun.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
Cool d00d. However anyone can grow pot, but it takes a special skill set to manufacture a working handgun.
Which just proves you don't know shit about growing good pot.
On December 07 2007 01:50 Meta wrote: I havent read most of this thread, but I assume there's some massive anti-gun law argument going on. All I have to say is that the founding fathers of America assumed the general will of the public would be good enough to stop these unfortunate disasters such as this one by giving everyone guns.
Also, they were using guns that took 5 hours to reload.
They took into account that there would be unforseen advancements in the future when they opened the constitution to amendment, and they still opted to legalize guns.
Read my last 2 posts, that's not true. Guns were illegal hence the reason for legalizing them in the first place for "militias." It wasn't about protecting states from the Federal government, it was about allowing States to protect themselves from the British/French/Indians/Uprising.
From the Declaration of Independence:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In the case of England controlling America, that means you can raise arms against it. In the case of the US government controlling American citizens, that means you institute a new government by voting. It's simply untrue to say Jefferson meant physical uprising.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
Cool d00d. However anyone can grow pot, but it takes a special skill set to manufacture a working handgun.
Which just proves you don't know shit about growing good pot.
no i think hes right, anyone can do it, but if u want good bud it takes lots of time and good care but thats about it. and the right seed
If you can make good pot, you will be able to make something that shoots. It's not that hard, actually, you wil probably end up with something that is one-shot and not that accurate, but it's possible.
On December 07 2007 03:37 Rev0lution wrote: I think the biggest problem with this kid and most anti-social people is that their family pretty much screwed them up from the beginning.
Family is the root of society. I don't see anyone criticizing the role of the parents.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
Cool d00d. However anyone can grow pot, but it takes a special skill set to manufacture a working handgun.
Which just proves you don't know shit about growing good pot.
I think the point is that growing drugs and smuggling drugs is a lot easier than manufactoring automatic weapons and then smuggle those.
Its a lot easier to find weapons than drugs, and its a lot less money to earn from it while a much bigger risk for the smugglers so you wont have many people with guns unless they are working hard to get them into the country.
If you ask 100k persons in sweden if they can get their hands on an illegal pistol, i bet that very very few know any contacts that could get them that, and automatic weapons are almost impossible.
On December 07 2007 03:37 Rev0lution wrote: I think the biggest problem with this kid and most anti-social people is that their family pretty much screwed them up from the beginning.
Family is the root of society. I don't see anyone criticizing the role of the parents.
Read better.
Sorry I didn't read the entire 7 pages, I did see parental discipline up there with reasons for shootings.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: Using Canada as an example is silly, too, because Canadians are very laid back and there are a LOT less black people in Canada than there are in the USA, and thus less crime. The cities are less foul, too. But I bet if a Canadian really wanted to shoot up the local shopping mall due to his Canadian teenage angst, he would not find it terribly hard to obtain a gun, and the opposition he would meet in committing the act would be laughable at best.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal.
Cool d00d. However anyone can grow pot, but it takes a special skill set to manufacture a working handgun.
Which just proves you don't know shit about growing good pot.
I think the point is that growing drugs and smuggling drugs is a lot easier than manufactoring automatic weapons and then smuggle those.
Its a lot easier to find weapons than drugs, and its a lot less money to earn from it while a much bigger risk for the smugglers so you wont have many people with guns unless they are working hard to get them into the country.
If you ask 100k persons in sweden if they can get their hands on an illegal pistol, i bet that very very few know any contacts that could get them that, and automatic weapons are almost impossible.
It is actually kinda easy here. Chances are, if you know a dealer for anything, you can get your hands on one.
But yeah, definitely harder to smuggle guns in. You can't exactly swallow a couple hundred guns in a condom and shit them out =p
Washington D.C passed a gun control law banning pistols (or concealed weapons I believe) iirc and actually experienced a spike in deaths from firearms. It has been kept pretty hush hush by the media because its viewed as the most tangible example of a US gun control scenario. It kind of confirms a lot of what those "red necks" are saying.
On December 07 2007 03:37 Rev0lution wrote: I think the biggest problem with this kid and most anti-social people is that their family pretty much screwed them up from the beginning.
Family is the root of society. I don't see anyone criticizing the role of the parents.
Read better.
Sorry I didn't read the entire 7 pages, I did see parental discipline up there with reasons for shootings.
It's not even that. They need love <3
Which is precisely what I said in my post about american career-pursuing mentality.
I dunno, there's a damn good reason weapons are illegal here in Russia - our nation is famous for it's drinking (we don't probably beat Estonia or Finland, though), and if people could buy guns, there would be too many drunkies shooting each other for fun. But if you really want to get a gun, it's possible. I don't have links to any exact suppliers (and that's perfectly understandabe given I've never needed a gun), but I don't think it would be too hard to find them if I really wanted. That's not the point. The root of the problem lies in the kids themselves.
I'm trying to make a point that post-industrial over-civilized societies have a dominating mindset that produces such incidents on a regular basis. All those emos, suicides, crowd shootings are a byproduct of overly civilized life. Life is very fast in those societies, it is very taxing on one's mind and mental health, leading to depression. Depression on it's turn leads to anti-social behavior. Couple it with a complete lack of coherent ideology in high-tech countries (because, you know, "scientists proved there is no god"), abundance of useless information (all those flashy ads and false stereotypes generated by media - "buy our lipstick and be a better person") and you get quite an unstable mix that could blow up at any minute. Modern "developed" societies were very quick to dethrone religion, not realizing that, even though it's statements seem absurd, it serves a very important role of pacifying population and giving people a guideline for living. With religion gone, and philosophy coming to a halt, people who have nothing overly important to worry about start pondering on why they are doing all that shitty stuff they do and find no answer. Note the suicide rates in less wealthy coutries - they are minimal. Methaphorically speaking, when you have to care about supporting your survival, you simply don't have the time to think about suicide or any other stupid crap.
On December 07 2007 03:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Washington D.C passed a gun control law banning pistols (or concealed weapons I believe) iirc and actually experienced a spike in deaths from firearms. It has been kept pretty hush hush by the media because its viewed as the most tangible example of a US gun control scenario. It kind of confirms a lot of what those "red necks" are saying.
statistical studies is not a one dimensional thing ;p
perhaps they forgot the variable "existing handguns put into the population due to less gun control in the past" and actually go all the way to remove them while having this law suddenly "turned" on.
regardless gun control didnt exist, then it existed. The changes that occurred following that event have been found noticeably unfavorable. Maybe it was just a bad year. Maybe these people are all being brainwashed by a Russian space station. Or maybe its a indication that gun control does have a negative impact when its publicly stated "ok, people are no longer allowed to carry weapons."
Criminals dont have to worry about a store filled with people who have pistols in their purses or bags.. but there is at least the possibility that someone is. That possibility creates a detterant mechanism that can and does prevent crime. Not all obviously. And people need to stop thinking that every american carries a gun, we dont. But the fact that some do because its their right means that we find ourselves experiencing a positive effect of Foucault's "Panopticism."
I sense a new TEAMLIQUIDSUCKS video after the complete shit this thread turned out to be. The posters that are actually intelligent here need to resist arguing with the morons because you'll just be frustrating yourselves, just my advice.
Although, if you are able to wade through the bullshit there is some hilariously stupid things in some of the posts that are either the work of trolls or complete idiots; I like the quote Spike pointed out at the top of this page.
On December 07 2007 04:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote: regardless gun control didnt exist, then it existed. The changes that occurred following that event have been found noticeably unfavorable. Maybe it was just a bad year. Maybe these people are all being brainwashed by a Russian space station. Or maybe its a indication that gun control does have a negative impact when its publicly stated "ok, people are no longer allowed to carry weapons."
Criminals dont have to worry about a store filled with people who have pistols in their purses or bags.. but there is at least the possibility that someone is. That possibility creates a detterant mechanism that can and does prevent crime. Not all obviously. And people need to stop thinking that every american carries a gun, we dont. But the fact that some do because its their right means that we find ourselves experiencing a positive effect of Foucault's "Panopticism."
place automated turrets in the mall that will deter criminals with guns
The DC gun prohibition was passed in 1975 and its massive crime spike was between 1987 and 1997, so I don't think it's a fair correlation. You've also got to consider that it's still extremely easy to bring in guns from VA and MD and that DC has a huge amount of other problems besides gun related crimes.
The poorest highschool in the country is also the closest one to Congress, if that tells you anything about the present state of Washington DC.
there you have it The info was passed to me converesly so I was under the impression it was recent. I wont make any further arguements for it as those numbers seem to be a lot uglier than what I had in mind.
Anyways I agree that the gun laws are outdated but I also think that outlawing guns in general wont stop these kind of things from happening. Its not like he legally obtained an Ak-47 and some grenades. People die from guns yes, its horrible. But I really do think that in todays day and age I would think people would want the ability to defend their family and self if they so choose.
just take a moment of silence, and consider the scenario that every one in the world has a gun. whereever you go, people around you all have guns. you actually feel safer? when you argue on some bad products with a merchant, a fight after too much beer, some road rage and collision arguments, how about a protest with shooting guns instead of throwing bottles?
there are so many scenarios that could go horribly wrong and much worse. the cons of allowing everyone to carry a gun far outweight the pros of protection against those "extreme criminals"
we all know how ignorant humans can be at times, and how a law-abiding citizen can do outrageous things at times.
On December 07 2007 04:10 JensOfSweden wrote: Anti-depressants...interesting, many shooters have been on them.
ya, psychiatrists in the united states(and some other places) has a incredibly high tendency of putting people on them, even if they don't really need it.
They are pretty good at inducing weird thought patterns, get into a deep discussion with someone on anti depressants, they can be pretty weird.
If you can't hold on to a job at Mc Donalds and it probably was the best job he could get. Stab in the dark, he screwed up everything he ever did. Copycatting other shooters in his warped mind this was going out with a bang. I have no link to back it up. But in the Netherlands most homocides are from stabwounds or brawles. If someone gets shot it makes it on the national news.
Hawkins lived with a friend's family. The mother, Debra Maruca Kovac,said she found a suicide note after getting a phone call from Hawkins about 1 p.m., just minutes before the shootings.
"He basically said how sorry he was for everything," Maruca Kovac said of the note. "He didn't want to be a burden to people and that he was a piece of s--- all of his life and that now he'd be famous."
She said he told her he'd just been fired from his job at a McDonald's restaurant.
"I said, 'Come home and we'll talk about it,' " she recounted. "He said, 'It's too late.' He said he'd left a note explaining everything."
She said Hawkins was a friend of her sons who "reminded me of a pound puppy that nobody wanted." He came to live with her family about a year and a half ago, telling her he could not stay with his own family because of "some issues with his stepmother."
The governor said Hawkins had been a ward of the state for about four years, but he did not specify in what capacity. The state's custody was terminated in August of 2006, Heineman said. He did not provide any further details.
Maruca Kovac described Hawkins as well-behaved, although "he had a lot of emotional problems, obviously."
She told the Omaha World-Herald that Hawkins showed her an assault rifle the night before the rampage, but because of his mild demeanor she wasn't alarmed.
Police believe Hawkins stole the AK-47 from his stepfather's home, Warren said. They are trying to trace the weapon and determine whether the stepfather owned it legally, he added.
...
A friend of Hawkins' said he hadn't thought Hawkins was capable of such violence.
"He was the one guy, you know, if people would be getting in a fight he'd be trying to break it up," Shawn Saunders, who had known Hawkins for about two and a half years, told CNN. "If there were arguments amongst our friends or groups, he was kind of like the calm, cool and collected one."
So obviously he had a bad upbringing and bad biological parents, but he wasn't a social outcast. And clearly he didn't have criminal connections to obtain the gun, he probably stole it from his stepfather which again highlights how ridiculous it is that people can own assault rifles in this country.
She told the Omaha World-Herald that Hawkins showed her an assault rifle the night before the rampage, but because of his mild demeanor she wasn't alarmed. /QUOTE]
WHAT?????!?!?!?
'HAI, LOOK WHAT I GOT LOL!'
yeah, teenagers typically have fucking assault rifles. holy fuck.
[QUOTE]On December 07 2007 06:39 Hawk wrote: [QUOTE]On December 07 2007 06:19 Jibba wrote:
She told the Omaha World-Herald that Hawkins showed her an assault rifle the night before the rampage, but because of his mild demeanor she wasn't alarmed. /QUOTE]
WHAT?????!?!?!?
'HAI, LOOK WHAT I GOT LOL!'
yeah, teenagers typically have fucking assault rifles. holy fuck.[/QUOTE]When guns are entirely out of the hands of civilians, mothers (or in this case pseudo-mothers) won't need to pick up on minor warning signs like this.
Well, it's pretty fucked up that she didn't do anything about it (unless owning assault rifles is common in Nebraska?) but he could've just as easily not shown it to anyone.
On December 07 2007 04:35 yisun518 wrote: just take a moment of silence, and consider the scenario that every one in the world has a gun. whereever you go, people around you all have guns. you actually feel safer? when you argue on some bad products with a merchant, a fight after too much beer, some road rage and collision arguments, how about a protest with shooting guns instead of throwing bottles?
there are so many scenarios that could go horribly wrong and much worse. the cons of allowing everyone to carry a gun far outweight the pros of protection against those "extreme criminals"
we all know how ignorant humans can be at times, and how a law-abiding citizen can do outrageous things at times.
Nobody is arguing for everyone to have a damn gun, they are arguing that if anyone so should choose to they can. Thats like saying "imagine everyone has the right to an attorney... now imagine a world where everyone DOES! Everything becomes legal blah blah blah."
You are taking it out of context. I dont own a gun and probably never will. But I think it is important that people are able to legally purchase guns.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: This topic = owned by Nony tbh. Anyhow, for anyone arguing that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I challenge you to survey about 100 American teens and ask them if they smoke marijuana. If they do, ask them how hard it is to get it. Not that hard, I bet you will find. Yet it is illegal. I have a friend who is a convicted felon, and he owns more guns than I do. You may know that it is illegal for a felon convicted of a violent crime to purchase a firearm, yet he has quite an arsenal. How? There are simply other places than Wal Mart to buy things, and it's very easy to get illegal goods. There are two types of violent crimes involving guns; one type which we are discussing here, the premeditated crime. These usually involve planned shootings motivated by pent-up rage, and are much more likely to be lethal. The other kind are what I like to call "impulse crimes", that is, someone gets a sudden surge of anger for one reason or another and lashes out. These are usually committed by ordinarily law-abiding citizens. It is also unlikely that these crimes will result in murder. Gun control laws MIGHT go some way to prevent, or at least reduce the severity of, impulse crimes. Obviously on an impulse, you will not have time to purchase a gun on the street. But a premeditated act of hate will not be stopped by a mere gun control law; in fact, it will be worsened by the fact that this person will have a gun regardless of laws, and it is almost a virtual GUARANTEE that none of his victims will be armed. So what you have is in essence a slaughter. Using Canada as an example is silly, too, because Canadians are very laid back and there are a LOT less black people in Canada than there are in the USA, and thus less crime. The cities are less foul, too. But I bet if a Canadian really wanted to shoot up the local shopping mall due to his Canadian teenage angst, he would not find it terribly hard to obtain a gun, and the opposition he would meet in committing the act would be laughable at best.
Read what i fucing reply to your god damn post before posting your usual stupidity seriously wtf...
God you are a fucking moron and a racist too... Canda has less crime because it has less blacks? god please mods ban this faggot.
PS: i already said that guns can be traced back and heads would roll, smugling an AK-47 is way harder than a fucking bag of weed.
On December 07 2007 04:35 yisun518 wrote: just take a moment of silence, and consider the scenario that every one in the world has a gun. whereever you go, people around you all have guns. you actually feel safer? when you argue on some bad products with a merchant, a fight after too much beer, some road rage and collision arguments, how about a protest with shooting guns instead of throwing bottles?
there are so many scenarios that could go horribly wrong and much worse. the cons of allowing everyone to carry a gun far outweight the pros of protection against those "extreme criminals"
we all know how ignorant humans can be at times, and how a law-abiding citizen can do outrageous things at times.
Nobody is arguing for everyone to have a damn gun, they are arguing that if anyone so should choose to they can. Thats like saying "imagine everyone has the right to an attorney... now imagine a world where everyone DOES! Everything becomes legal blah blah blah."
You are taking it out of context. I dont own a gun and probably never will. But I think it is important that people are able to legally purchase guns.
Thank you, iNcontroL.
I'm not sure why all the anti-gun people think pro-gun want everyone to be issued a firearm. That's not the issue at all.
Yet another example of the collective intelligence of those in favor of banning the right to defend yourself.
On December 07 2007 08:21 baal wrote: lol i read this in Wisconsin's gun laws:
Silencers are legal if you follow BATFE process, statute 941.298
ROFL Silencers are absolutely essential for self defense.... not for stealthy assasination.
Suppressors cut down on noise pollution and reduce the negative effects of firing a weapon indoors during CQC situations for tactical operators.
The fact that you'd refer to a suppressor (read: what the uneducated call a "silencer") as "stealthy" shows just how much you know. Suppressors don't make gunshots silent; they reduce the report.
It really is a shame that you have absolutely no idea about any of these things. Do a little research, and you'll find quickly that your pro-gun control stance is completely indefensible.
On December 07 2007 03:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Washington D.C passed a gun control law banning pistols (or concealed weapons I believe) iirc and actually experienced a spike in deaths from firearms. It has been kept pretty hush hush by the media because its viewed as the most tangible example of a US gun control scenario. It kind of confirms a lot of what those "red necks" are saying.
Bingo.
I'm glad Guiliani referenced this during the YouTube debate, but none of the pro-gun control want to talk about it. I guess when you realize your ridiculous point of view on a subject is being destroyed by unbiased statistics, you just pretend it doesn't exist.
On December 07 2007 02:30 MarklarMarklar wrote: Mayson what a fucking uninformed idiot you are.
shit
Good thing you provided statistics to prove me wrong.
Oh wait--you can't prove me wrong since the statistics are on my side.
And don't bother touting Kellerman's study. It's inherently confounded, and anybody with an IQ over 100 can see why.
On December 06 2007 20:08 micronesia wrote: Ugh I hope this doesn't actually turn into another argument about whether or not a change in gun legislation would prevent this kind of incident.
On a related note, I wonder why so many more kids nowadays are suffering from adult mental health issues than in the past. Is it just because they are better diagnosed now?
Well its hard to paper cut 9 people to death in a mall.
The problem is they need to not sell weapons in general to people with depression or taking drugs for certain things.
I know I'm responding this a little late but ADHD and depression weren't that kids only problems. My whole family has depression (Manic for most of my dad's side I'm not sure what level my mom has) and they've never done anything like this. The worst thing that's happened was a suicide. The kid was a psycho, depression doesn't really drive you to hurt others.
On December 07 2007 04:10 JensOfSweden wrote: Anti-depressants...interesting, many shooters have been on them.
ya, psychiatrists in the united states(and some other places) has a incredibly high tendency of putting people on them, even if they don't really need it.
They are pretty good at inducing weird thought patterns, get into a deep discussion with someone on anti depressants, they can be pretty weird.
Many americans have some form of depression. Most is related to weight and self esteem issues many have hormonal depression. These people get through the day without shooting up everything. Stop posting. You don't know.
I decided to research this. According to Web MD estimated 19 million adults live with major depression. This isn't counting children or people with mild cases of it. You really don't know. I agree that some doctors prescribe medication to readily but it does help to even out many people.
It's like people that say doctors prescribe Ritalin and Adderall to often. Same as depression many people have minor to major cases of ADD, ADHD, etc. it's not something you can just grit your teeth and get through, medicine is a lot of times the only useful thing.
I'd also like to add that anger and such is part of it but from what I understand (and from personal experience + family members) it tends to go towards feeling down, tired, weak, etc.
Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.
Prescriptions have an effect on your cognitive ability, which means you could potentially do something impulsive. This is the same reason why many police departments mandate that off-duty officers not carry a concealed weapon while drinking.
On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote: Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.
Prescriptions have an effect on your cognitive ability, which means you could potentially do something impulsive. This is the same reason why many police departments mandate that off-duty officers not carry a concealed weapon while drinking.
.45 ACP = 157.0 dB unsuppressed AAC Black Box = 28-40 dB reduction
So you're telling me that a 129 dB (or 117 dB assuming the greatest reduction) gunshot is "stealthy," when a pneumatic riveter (or trombone) is just as loud (at 125 dB and up to 114 dB, respectively)? I don't see assassins toting pneumatic riveters (or trombones) around for "stealthy" kills.
Also, note how hearing loss begins at 140 dB, and that unsuppressed gunshots exceed that. Suppressors bring the dB report below the damage level, hence their existence. Suppressors were designed to reduce noise pollution in residential areas and to reduce hearing loss.
It's really not my fault they're so widely used in movies and video games, and are portrayed as completely silent.
On December 07 2007 04:10 JensOfSweden wrote: Anti-depressants...interesting, many shooters have been on them.
ya, psychiatrists in the united states(and some other places) has a incredibly high tendency of putting people on them, even if they don't really need it.
They are pretty good at inducing weird thought patterns, get into a deep discussion with someone on anti depressants, they can be pretty weird.
Idiot..
Antidepressants are _NOT_ causing these events and I can't even believe the stupid twist people are putting on this. It's like "All of these shooters have had a tendency to eat to sustain life, which we can only conclude, drove them to this."
Has anyone considered the possibility that these people were so messed up psychologically beforehand, so they were PRESCRIBED these drugs in an attempt to help? It doesn't surprise me at all that most shooter were prescribed drugs because they were CLEARLY UNSTABLE.
Here's an interesting fact. I guarantee _ALL_ the suicides and shooters have been to therapy! *Gasp* We can only conclude that therapists are causing this!
I am on antidepressants because I am medically depressed. Certain intances that wouldn't normally effect someone, effect me very deeply. I feel extreme pain and dread for no reasons whatsoever, and sometimes I just get indescribably scared and tired. These anti-depressants have helped me function in times of great depression, including eating and sleeping. It hasn't caused me to have violent thoughts or any psychological side effects whatsoever. Anti-depressants coupled with Therapy is the most effective treatment for depression and anxiety disorders, though mild cases often do not require treatment.
I also completely agree with BluzMan. Even if you do not agree with religion, it's proven effect on people is undeniable. How many church going people end up shooting up a mall? All the civilian shootings lately have been by anarchistic, "Natural Selection", "Life without a point" type people.
On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote: Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.
You are not allowed to buy guns if you are deemed by a judge a danger to yourself or others... which makes me wonder how the Vtech killer got guns... I guess I could look it up but someone must know.
god, we need like, serious truth detectors,.. what can we do to stop these things, its just real hard dont you think? you dont know that much of people's personal lives, and just a second after, they start a shooting, dont you think its hard for the Goverment what to do? they cant trust anyone, not even their closest friends
In the Netherlands there were 204 homocides recorded in 2005 dropping down from a record of 284 somewherein the 199-. Knives is1nr cause of death. 2nr is guns. 3rd Is choke/suffocation. This is from a 15,5 milion population. Guns a prohibbited in the Netherlands. Where do guns rank in the USA see graph.
About the results in Washington: People were forbidden to wear the weapons on the streets. They still owned the guns. The guns were still there for angry people to grab. I think the peak in gunuse was a short term effect. If the guns were prohibbited altogether a long term effect would be that even criminals have a hard time to get a gun because those guns wouldn't be stolen leaked from the legal.
On December 06 2007 22:58 Lazerflip! wrote: Pro gun control people are so stupid it makes me want to vomit. If guns were illegal, criminals would still get the guns, just like criminals still get the drugs that they need. Gun control stops law-abiding citizens from getting guns, not people planning a suicidal mass-shooting. If you were going to end your life and kill mass people, I don't think a silly little law would stop you. What the law DOES do (and lack of concealed carry) is prevent law abiding citizens from saving their own lives, and the lives of countless many others, and render them unable to do anything but watch as a crazy kid guns down innocent people in a fucking shopping mall. If we were able to legally carry handguns, this kid would have gotten a shot or two off before being gunned down by someone who was smart enough to carry a concealed weapon for their own protection. But people who are pro-gun control don't care about any of this, they just care about their own agenda of having the government restrict every part of our lives. And this is the result.
P.S. If you don't live in American, here is a little tidbit of information for you. I am 19 years old, and I can legally buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47, but I have to be age 21 to purchase a handgun. Grenades are illegal though, but that just supports my argument that even if something is banned, it will always find it's way into the hands of the criminals, and a concealed carry law would even the odds for law-abiding citizens to save their own asses.
Pro gun control people want to make you vomit? It's people like you that are hysterical about others and generalize groups of people that disgust me. How can you say that gun control would be just a silly little law? Think about it, if guns were illegal, how incredibly hard would it be for an average person, such as that 19 year old emo asshole, to acquire the weapon and then the ammunition? You talk about saving your own life, that's great. So you expect random strangers to just bust out of nowhere and start shooting at you? Seriously, do you expect to be attacked any minute of your life. And then you generalize pro-gun control people again and commit libel by writing all they care about is their own agenda and having the gov. restrict people's lives?
Your opinions on this issue are so false and worthless.
.45 ACP = 157.0 dB unsuppressed AAC Black Box = 28-40 dB reduction
So you're telling me that a 129 dB (or 117 dB assuming the greatest reduction) gunshot is "stealthy," when a pneumatic riveter (or trombone) is just as loud (at 125 dB and up to 114 dB, respectively)? I don't see assassins toting pneumatic riveters (or trombones) around for "stealthy" kills.
Also, note how hearing loss begins at 140 dB, and that unsuppressed gunshots exceed that. Suppressors bring the dB report below the damage level, hence their existence. Suppressors were designed to reduce noise pollution in residential areas and to reduce hearing loss.
It's really not my fault they're so widely used in movies and video games, and are portrayed as completely silent.
I actually just saw a thing on the news last night about some common toys (when held directly to the ear, like kids do) have up to 106 dB and that prolonged usage can cause hearing damage.
Just to give a little comparison an airplane is something like 120-140 dB (I think they said) and normal conversation would be around 65 dB. yea, here is a chart: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Its irreversible damage because the little hair cells that float in the ear liquid break or whatever.
Gun laws will not solve these kinds of freak occurrences.
On December 07 2007 00:11 Fen wrote: Once again, another public shooting in america. Once again, americans try to argue that their retarded gun laws have nothing to do with the shooing Once again, the world laughs at the stupidity of these people and waits for the next shooting.
This post may sound like I think its funny that people got killed. I DO NOT think that. It is a terrible tragedy. However I do think it is funny that people can be soo blindly ignorant. If you cannot see that your countries gun laws ARE the reason there are soo many shootings, then you deserve to be the next one shot.
Well put. The only reason I'm so angry about this issue is the fact that I love the positive sides of America and am very loyal to its citizens. I only wish this bullshit can stop.
On December 07 2007 09:03 Mayson wrote: Someone suffering from depression shouldn't be denied their 2nd Amendment rights, but someone on prescription drugs for any mental or emotional issue should be denied until a safe period after the prescription has been revoked.
You are not allowed to buy guns if you are deemed by a judge a danger to yourself or others... which makes me wonder how the Vtech killer got guns... I guess I could look it up but someone must know.
Virginia has different laws. There's nothing preventing someone with mental issues from legally purchasing a firearm.
.45 ACP = 157.0 dB unsuppressed AAC Black Box = 28-40 dB reduction
So you're telling me that a 129 dB (or 117 dB assuming the greatest reduction) gunshot is "stealthy," when a pneumatic riveter (or trombone) is just as loud (at 125 dB and up to 114 dB, respectively)? I don't see assassins toting pneumatic riveters (or trombones) around for "stealthy" kills.
Also, note how hearing loss begins at 140 dB, and that unsuppressed gunshots exceed that. Suppressors bring the dB report below the damage level, hence their existence. Suppressors were designed to reduce noise pollution in residential areas and to reduce hearing loss.
It's really not my fault they're so widely used in movies and video games, and are portrayed as completely silent.
I actually just saw a thing on the news last night about some common toys (when held directly to the ear, like kids do) have up to 106 dB and that prolonged usage can cause hearing damage.
Just to give a little comparison an airplane is something like 120-140 dB (I think they said) and normal conversation would be around 65 dB. yea, here is a chart: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Its irreversible damage because the little hair cells that float in the ear liquid break or whatever.
Gun laws will not solve these kinds of freak occurrences.
Exactly.
That's why I laugh so hard at ignorant people who think a "silencer" makes a gunshot silent. All it does it take the decibel level down enough to where it's no longer dangerous to your hearing.
Then people get pissed when people find out suppressors are completely legal in most states in the US. "zomg ther wil b ninja killinz"
Idiots. It's bad enough they think gun control will work, despite the fact that criminals, on a daily basis, defy the gun laws already in place.
On December 07 2007 10:29 Jibba wrote: Mayson, how come you haven't responded to me yet? Is it because your claims were baseless? Yeah, it probably is.
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Right, I said it was irrelevant to this case, but what about the VA Tech shootings? Do you honestly believe a 21/30/50 year old should be able to own an assault rifle?
As for the Supreme Court rulings, when? You really are a nitwit. Supreme Court rulings on the second Amendment primarily cover whether it's designed to be a restriction of the federal government only, or of both the federal government and state government. They ruled that it's the prior, but specifically said:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.
Oh--I misinterpreted another article I had read. It wasn't about the Supreme Court, but about something else.
Edit: "This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms." (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html)
I read about this case, where the results were mis-quoted.
That's fine, you just responded rudely so I had to do the same.
Seriously though, do you think private citizens (of legal age, non-felons, etc.) should be able to own assault rifles? It sounds like the kid took it from his step father.
Well, first I have to ask: do you actually know what an assault rifle is, or are you just repeating the words you hear on the news?
The term "assault rifle" implies there is the ability to select the firing mode. For example, the M16A2, the rifle issued to the US military, has three fire mods: safe, semi-automatic, and three-round burst. That makes it an assault rifle (plus the addition of the pistol grip and separate stock).
Now, does a civilian have the right to own one of those? Sure. I mean, I could go buy an AR-15 civilian model which is semi-automatic only, and I could still fire it just as fast.
The only difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic in terms of self-defense is that one firing mode allows you to waste more ammunition faster. If you get hit once or twice from any kind of rifle caliber, you're pretty much done. It doesn't matter how many times you have to pull the trigger.
Ok, well any type of automatic rifle. Morally, should regular citizens be able to purchase those weapons?
Certainly it wouldn't be used for self defense in these situations, as no one walks around with a rifle or takes them to the mall. Would you even use it to protect your house instead of a handgun? You'd probably cause more damage.
Very few people will use a rifle caliber for the purpose of home-defense. Rifle calibers typically over-penetrate, meaning a shot fired legally in self-defense at an intruder can over-penetrate common materials found in a residence (i.e. walls) and hit innocent people.
If you want an effective weapon for home-defense, buy a 12 gauge shotgun, and use 00 buck shot.
There are plenty of people who do use rifles for self-defense, and whether a rifle is fully-automatic or semi-automatic makes very little difference. One wastes ammunition; the other does not. Besides, a semi-automatic can be fired just as quickly as an automatic, so the rate of fire makes absolutely no difference with regards to "lethality."
If you're shot by a semi-automatic AR-15, you're just as dead as if you're shot by a fully-automatic M4 (military designation for the AR-15 platform).
Wrong. He was a criminal before the shooting started.
He was in possession of an assault rifle, which isn't legal at 19 years of age. He was in possession of hand grenades, which isn't legal for any private citizen.
This makes him a criminal before the shooting occurred.
Right, I said it was irrelevant to this case, but what about the VA Tech shootings? Do you honestly believe a 21/30/50 year old should be able to own an assault rifle?
As for the Supreme Court rulings, when? You really are a nitwit. Supreme Court rulings on the second Amendment primarily cover whether it's designed to be a restriction of the federal government only, or of both the federal government and state government. They ruled that it's the prior, but specifically said:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.
Yeah. If you are defending your house, use a shotgun. If you are going to a gun fight, bring a rifle. If you are concealing a weapon, use a Nikita Missile Launcher (2 of these suggestions are actually quite reasonable although I doubt many people here are planning on going to gun fights).
Well, then again, law-abiding citizens don't obtain their CCW permit with the intent of using it. Most people don't buy a shotgun with the intent of using it, either.
The reason the topic of assault rifles is always so heated is because they (1) aren't typical hunting rifles, and (2) the media has blown their killing power out of proportion.
Let me put it this way:
Take a Remington 700. It's a bolt-action rifle often using by Marine Force Recon Scout snipers. It shoots a .308 caliber bullet. That means it will split you in half when it hits you.
Now take a Rock River Arms CAR-A4. It's a semi-automatic version of the M4 currently issued to some soldiers in the US military.
But also include an M16A2, the standard issue assault rifle in the US Army.
If you get hit by any of the three, you are most likely going to die. The only difference is that with the Remington 700, you'll take one hit, and then it'll likely be three or more seconds before you'll be hit again. But, keep in mind: you were a goner after the first hit regardless of successive hits.
With either the CAR-A4 or the M16A2, you could take numerous hits in quick succession, but again, you're pretty much gone after the first hit anyways.
I make no distinction in killing power between any of the three. I only divide them based on operation.
On December 07 2007 11:12 Jibba wrote: Who uses those weapons for self defense? And is it reasonable for them to be using such a powerful weapon over a hand gun?
Right, it seems to me at the very least, regardless of the handgun decision, no one should purchasing an AK-47.
Many, many people use shotguns for home-defense.
I know it's safe to say a minority of people who use arms for home-defense use rifles. Keep in mind we law-abiding citizens do our homework, and know the ballistic behavior of the firearms we intend to use for any given purpose, and understand our legal liabilities as a result of using a weapon.
Beliefs on gun control are largely a matter of culture. Consider Holland. The Dutch are brought believing guns are unnecessary and allowing their fellow citizens to have them makes no sense. Likewise the laws dictate owning guns is illegal. This is largely a cultural norm that developed in the 1900's and the results have been amazing for Holland. Holland has one of the lowest murder rates and anyone who has a gun is a complete shit bag.
As an American I was not brought up to think this way about guns and beliefs regarding gun control vary largely in America. I believe strongly in adopting a stance similar to what the Dutch have done. If you can convince your entire population guns suck, then you won't have a large issue with gun abuse. This has worked for many countries.
The problem is that gun control already exists to an extent, and it's done nothing. The only actual positive effects on crime have been shown to originate from allowing citizens to legally own, carry, and use firearms in self-defense.
Studies done with incarcerated criminals showed a trend: criminals were deterred from committing crimes when they knew there was a chance they could be injured by the homeowner with a firearm.
Criminals, by definition, do not care about the laws. Do you think they'll suddenly give up their guns if gun control is made more strict? No. They didn't care about the Assault Weapons Ban of 1986, so they sure as hell won't care about whatever laws the government comes up.
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.
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.
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.
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 -_-
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
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.
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 12:25 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 -_-
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.
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?)
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
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.
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.
On December 07 2007 12:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I like you Mayson, live strong.
I think you, HeadBangaa, and myself are the only ones in this thread capable of independent thought. The majority of other posts are just spewing loads of horse shit from the Brady campaign.
Wow I never expected 3 people with this mindset to be ganging up on 1-2 people with that mindset.. pretty funny Usually its the mob of ignorant lefties vs the few "radical" righties who have the guts to say a word or two.
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.
None of the arguments being presented here put forth this retarded viewpoint.
Get the fuck out with your strawman fallacies, please.
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.
And this debate has turned from argument to personal flames. How sad and immature. I see no reason to counter your insults.
But I would also like to thank you for not addressing any part of the points I made. It makes me feel I'm right.
I'm actually more moderate-liberal than conservative. I just defend my rights.
People need to understand that many of the statistics used to support gun control are skewed in some way, thus creating a bias.
For example, the crime rate in England was relatively low compared to the US before gun control was implemented. After gun control was implemented, the crimes rates did rise, albeit not by a significant amount.
All gun control will do is leave an entire population disarmed. It would be shooting fish in a barrel for the criminals.
Like was previously stated, outlawing firearms means the only people with firearms are the outlaws themselves, thus leaving the law-abiding citizens to be completely defenseless.
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.
And this debate has turned from argument to personal flames. How sad and immature. I see no reason to counter your insults.
But I would also like to thank you for not addressing any part of the points I made. It makes me feel I'm right.
It's been 12 pages before I gave in and returned an insult.
That's better than you, and nothing you've said has been right. It's all been opinion, which, by definition, is neither correct nor incorrect.
I would like to point out, regarding the major issue being discussed, it's not a matter of whether the pros and cons of each side of the argument are SIGNIFICANT... it's just a matter of which side's pros and cons outweigh each other. Therefore, this is a subjective value judgment. If you go back and read everything you will probably notice how many people have been either acting like one side is irrefutably correct, or denying that the other side has any illegitimate claims... both of which are wrong.
We are one of the only countries with any reference to fire arms in our constitution. I claim this is one of the reasons some remain attached to them. People have a love of the constitution. I personally love the majority of it. A logical step is guns = constitution = good. Do you see it? It's right there.
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.
And this debate has turned from argument to personal flames. How sad and immature. I see no reason to counter your insults.
But I would also like to thank you for not addressing any part of the points I made. It makes me feel I'm right.
It's been 12 pages before I gave in and returned an insult.
That's better than you, and nothing you've said has been right. It's all been opinion, which, by definition, is neither correct nor incorrect.
On December 07 2007 13:08 aRod wrote: This is in response to headbangaa.
We are one of the only countries with any reference to fire arms in our constitution. I claim this is one of the reasons some remain attached to them. People have a love of the constitution. I personally love the majority of it. A logical step is guns = constitution = good. Do you see it? It's right there.
The Constitution outlines what the government may not do to infringe upon the rights of the people, which the Constitution recognizes as existing before said Constitution was written.
Picking one Amendment out of many to single out seems a little hasty, considering that Americans love all freedoms recognized by the Constitution.
I, however, will not ever give up the right to self-preservation. It must be forcibly taken from me.
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.
And this debate has turned from argument to personal flames. How sad and immature. I see no reason to counter your insults.
But I would also like to thank you for not addressing any part of the points I made. It makes me feel I'm right.
It's been 12 pages before I gave in and returned an insult.
That's better than you, and nothing you've said has been right. It's all been opinion, which, by definition, is neither correct nor incorrect.
The Brady campaign is at it again. I'm getting really sick and tired of this guy and his indefensible point of view.
I hate to point this out again, (not really I love it), but you failed to address any of my points.
You've failed to disprove any of mine. (Here's a hint: you can't. I don't cite biased sources. All of the statistics I'm citing are from government sources, or from controlled research studies.)
On December 07 2007 13:08 aRod wrote: This is in response to headbangaa.
We are one of the only countries with any reference to fire arms in our constitution. I claim this is one of the reasons some remain attached to them. People have a love of the constitution. I personally love the majority of it. A logical step is guns = constitution = good. Do you see it? It's right there.
Guns are really only one piece of your constitution, so it equaling it isnt exactly true. It is true your constitution mentioned firearms, but that is only one of the sections of it. If someone does the step guns = constitution = good would mean they don't care about the document in entirety, and instead the part that lets them carry around weapons.
I look at this as kinda a dumb argument, with this day and age, guns will be around, all that is required is gun control that is stricter in a sense of "you cant have automatic weapons" but letting people still have their rifles and hand guns. Just make sure your system is one that works decently and realize that people will still obtain automatics illegally, or the like.
The answer isnt remove all weapons, or let everyone have what they want its moderation. Give access to the ones that can be used in recreational fun, not the ones that are specifically designed with killing other people as the purpose.
You know what's super awesome about the constitution? It's not immutable. The architects of the constitution were keen to cultural change, and knew better than to impose their temporal 'druthers in an absolute manner. That's how you can love the constitution without dogma. It is quite an impressive piece of work, actually.
But your statement seeks to exploit the polarization of patriots as "righties" and flag-burners as "lefties". I consider you a casualty of the media.
On December 07 2007 12:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Wow I never expected 3 people with this mindset to be ganging up on 1-2 people with that mindset.. pretty funny Usually its the mob of ignorant lefties vs the few "radical" righties who have the guts to say a word or two.
thanks for putting everyone for gun laws as a tree hugging hippiel and everyone who opposses it as a right wing radical. There is no freethinking and we're just brainwashed by groupthink special interests groups!
I acknowledge many of you points and support many of them. Gun control legislation in the United States has not produced results. I don't think it will work. You are right here. I HAVE acknowledge this. I don't like the static nature of unrestricted gun use in a country when many others are outlawing them. I have only stated I wish we could move away from them, and gun control is part of this effort.
arod, your theories about cultural drift don't apply. Society will not evolve away from "crime". Guns are a means, not a paradigm (such as racism, sexism). Apples and oranges, kiddo.
For as long as humans have existed, other humans have infringed upon rights which most people agree are inherent and implicit.
Oh, and, the shooter used an SKS, which is a semi-automatic Russian military rifle. There's nothing illegal about that specific firearm, other than that he likely didn't legally possess it.
Edit: Nevermind. News sources conflict on whether the rifle used was a fully-automatic AK-47, or a semi-automatic SKS.
Either way, it was illegal for the shooter to possess the rifle, but I'd be more concerned with how he got an AK-47 than an SKS.
You understand the contitution, Loving the constitution without dogma is great. I support it. Sadly for some it doesn't happen. People tend to associate with groups accepting core tenants. Once ingrained these beliefs rarely change. I stand by my statement. Nationalistic attachment to the constitution translates, for many Americans, respecting the right to bear arms. This does not mention left, right, or politics. This is about social identity and where the strong attachment to this antiquated right comes from.
You said "arod, your theories about cultural drift don't apply. Society will not evolve away from "crime". Guns are a means, not a paradigm (such as racism, sexism). Apples and oranges, kiddo."
I have to competely counter this. We have cultural attitudes toward gun use just as we have cultural attitudes toward anything such as racism and sexism. Getting rid of guns won't eliminate crime. I know this. But societies do move away from crime. For an example of this I site Holland. Look at their statistics on crime compared to the United States. American cultural attachment to guns is a paradigm. This paradigm has and will continue to change. I cite the rise of gun control laws. Where was gun control 100 years ago in America? It didn't exist. I must stress again I do not support immediate abolition of firearms in the United States. America is not ready for this. "insert random aggressive but yet familiar attachment."
You have met my "society will not evolve away from crime" with "look at crime in Holland." But Holland is a homogenous culture: a bunch of white people eating shortbread cookies and dancing in the mud with cute wooden shoes. Is that really comparable to the dynamic demographic of the USA? For example, cultural pluralism is a precondition to race-related gang activity. That's an entire branch of crime Holland is basically exempt from. Secondly, you continue to ignore statistics about the impact of gun control in a more relevant context. How far am I really going to get with such blatant blind-eying?
Yes, guns are grandfathered into the culture in USA. The gun attachment has existed since before the inception of the United States itself. The problem is cultural, but not "gun-culture". The people who go to shooting ranges and hunt often are not the ones committing the crimes, though they are the primary members of "gun culture" and the ones who are disenfranchised by ridiculous gun control laws.
A lot of you hyper-liberals would laugh at the idea of reading NRA literature, but I recommend you to go buy a single issue from the news stand and read about the politics of gun control laws. That should at least give you some balance from the left-swing of the cultural pendulum which saturate the opinions of those who speak on gun control.
Crime is a constant. Crime has always existed, still exists today, and always will exist. If we, as a society and culture, migrate away from guns, we migrate away from the appropriate and effective means with which to defend ourselves, our family, our property, our ideals, and our general well-being, not only as individuals, but as communities, and as a society as a whole.
40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL 1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,’ because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940?s, 1950?s and 1960?s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote: I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47 - It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades - Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work.
He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it.
Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood.
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down.
The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/
EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either.
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote: Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy.
I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing
I would like to first acknowledge statistics. Gun control has had almost no effect on gun use in crimes etc. Cities with gun control laws have higher crime rates as do all cities etc. I mean it goes on from both sides. Frankly after looking at the statistics I believe gun control has had no clear effect on gun use in crimes. I don't believe gun control has strongly influenced crime or gun use. But I say give it time. Opinion polls concerning gun ownership and use continue to show a trend towards advocating gun control and not owning personal firearms.
America is not a homogeneous culture. This is an excellent point. This makes any universally accepted cultural attitudes difficult to adopt, but we do adopt them and continue to adopt them. I site women voting. I could go on with dramatic examples, but gun control is much smaller. I liken our beliefs on gun control more to smoking. Americans have slowly been moving away from smoking (very very slowly) and slowly passing laws against cigarette companies just like guns.
You criticize me for not applying gun control in a relevant context. But I think my context is entirely relevant. Where we head as a culture is largely directed by todays efforts. This has been my context and will continue to be my context. Realizing gun control is part of cultural change is important to acknowledge. Realizing where it has the potential to take us is important. But then again, points about the effect of gun control laws are also relevant. As I said, I do not advocate abolishing fire arms. I advocate gun control as a means of education and cultural change.
I mean how many people ever reach this level of analysis regarding gun control. Most people stop much sooner. Get people thinking. Keep the debate going.
On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote: I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47 - It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades - Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work.
He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it.
Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood.
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down.
The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/
EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either.
Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime.
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
On December 07 2007 14:31 aRod wrote: Frankly after looking at the statistics I believe gun control has had no clear effect on gun use in crimes.
Well I'm looking at this patch of grass right here and, by George, I believe it's red and not green.
You sarcasm is unnecessary and it detracts. But, since you make me ask, what clear evidence is there that gun control (this could be any form of gun control) has influenced crime?
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote: Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy.
I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing
You're pointing to a "Top 40" chain email, I'm talking about historical texts and notes from our founding fathers.
The Second Amendment refers to the legalized possession of firearms to state militias, because guns were illegal for private citizens. The reason they were allowed for militias was because the federal government was not allowed to have a standing army, but we still needed military protection from OUTSIDE attackers. If it was intended to protect us from our own government, it would serve no purpose at the time because our government had no military. The second Amendment establishes our first form of military. Furthermore, members of the militia needed to purchase the guns with their own money because neither the state or federal government had the money to provide them.
The modern incarnation of these militias is the National Guard, which is federally funded and can be called upon by the federal government, however the commander in-chief of the Nat'l Guard is the governor of the state each unit is representing, so they are a "state militia."
As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to say:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship
I agree, any local effort to ban handguns is silly considering the availability of handguns elsewhere in the country and the freedom of shipment. Have any logical forms of gun control influenced crime such as clip restrictions or cool down times?
On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote: I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47 - It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades - Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work.
He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it.
Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood.
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down.
The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/
EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either.
Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime.
You're right, but teenagers will always be very capable of stealing things from their parents.
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
No idea. That's why I defer this responsibility to Think Tanks and legislators in Washington, whom I pay with my tax dollars to figure these things out. You do the same, we're not fixing the world on TL.net.
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
I know, but Bangaa suggested reading NRA manuscripts. There's certainly some merit to "understanding the other side" but if you bounce between Lobby literature from both sides of an argument, you're never going to come close to an objective view.
Actually I agree aRob, I misunderstood you but re-read your post.
On December 07 2007 14:31 aRon wrote: Opinion polls concerning gun ownership and use continue to show a trend towards advocating gun control and not owning personal firearms.
I guess I don't understand how the "gun control cultural movement" is inherently good. You claim it is the product of evolving cultural. Where is evidence of that? On the contrary, I claim my views are the direction of progression, and yours are a devolution. It seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? You say that the movement exists because it is progress. I say it exists because of smear-campaigns, fallacious appeals to fear, and general group-think. All I see are sheep influenced by mass media. The proof: Speaking against gun control is almost as marginalizing as declaring that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, even though gun control can be studied and the effects quantified. There should be no taboo. And yet, why people react to these in the same way.
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote: I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47 - It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades - Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work.
He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it.
Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood.
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down.
The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/
EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either.
Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime.
You're right, but teenagers will always be very capable of stealing things from their parents.
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
No idea. That's why I defer this responsibility to Think Tanks and legislators in Washington, whom I pay with my tax dollars to figure these things out. You do the same, we're not fixing the world on TL.net.
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
I know, but Bangaa suggested reading NRA manuscripts. There's certainly some merit to "understanding the other side" but if you bounce between Lobby literature from both sides of an argument, you're never going to come close to an objective view.
To say that "understanding the other side" necessitates "bouncing between lobby literature" is nuts. The NRA reveals a lot about the specific political leaders who seek to pass strict gun control laws, and has compiled a lot of objective, factual information about the track records of such government officials. It's very revealing, and not something palatable to the mainstream media. This justifies "understanding the other side" proactively, if you care at all about truth. Of course, I will not make the mistake of assuming that people care about truth so much as comfort :p
To say that "understanding the other side" necessitates "bouncing between lobby literature" is nuts.
You're right, it absolutely doesn't necessitate that, but you do need to understand that you're reading propaganda when you read what the NRA writes.
All their information will always be slanted and taken from their preferred sources, and it's the same as any other lobby. The NRA isn't especially evil, they're just as evil as AIPAC/AARP/etc.
The gun control movement may not be inherently good, but I believe it is the best thing for the United States. It is possible to move towards a crime free violence free culture with guns in hand, but, I think our chances are better at improving crime rates by slowly moving away from guns. The Swiss, French, Dutch, English, etc... all have much better crime rates and murder rates without guns. People link guns with death and violence. By denouncing firearms we denounce violence and collectively progress. That's my opinion at least.
I hate to address the political side of this debate. In mainstream politics everything is marginalized. It's pointless to listen to political debates on "Issues" simply because politicians don't seek to educate. They seek to pander and win votes. However that doesn't make issues like gun control illegitimate. These are sincere daily regularities that do effect peoples lives
On December 07 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is in response to HeadBangaa
The gun control movement may not be inherently good, but I believe it is the best thing for the United States. It is possible to move towards a crime free violence free culture with guns in hand, but, I think our chances are better at improving crime rates by slowly moving away from guns. The Swiss, French, Dutch, English, etc... all have much better crime rates and murder rates without guns. People link guns with death and violence. By denouncing firearms we denounce violence and collectively progress. That's my opinion at least.
Psh frekin always taking the easy way out dieing is always easyer if the dude was not so freakin emo he proably would not have been fired for McD. porably for making comsters leaving by scareing their children and his GF would not have dumped him becuase he was always a pussy and never a man's man.
Always the dude sucks he had a AK-47 and gernades and he only killed 9 wounded 3 he can't do shit right dont blame me for my attitute about death but overpopulation is the worlds greatest problem so a few deaths here and there is bull.
Hell take Cali over the past 10 years our educational(K12) medacare and medical have been falling drastically due to the high influlx of illegal immigrants because they are generally poorer, have lower incomes, and qualify for more state and local services and assistance. Women receive publicly funded prenatal and obstetric care. Their US born children are entitled to welfare, food stamps and medical aid. Compared to native households, immigrant families from latin america are nearly three times as likelu to receive government welfare payments. Becuase of less money and are less likely to own property they pay lower taxes some pay none. In general estiments range that illegal or poor country immigrant pay 1/3 less tax per capita then other us households. And this is very heavy to california wheere an estimated 1 in 4 illegal immigrants live, and where hlaf of all children have immigrant parents. local and state goverments shoulder the biggest cost generated by immigrants exp on education. an avg non immigrant household in cali paid 1178$ more in state and local taxes than the calue of servies that they received. conversly immigrant households payed $3463 less then they caluse of the services they received. This has crushed and crippled california's schools hospitals and state jails and prisons. Anyways dont say anything bad about me i took alot of these facts from the NRC and jsut rember in California passed prop 187 awhile back but it was shot down in courts for being unconsitional (it cut illiegal immigrants off of all state public servies in california)
got hella off topic but this is what i get when im writing a term paper and surfing the web
"Even if guns were illegal it would be easy to get one" - That's true if there's lots of guns in circulation already, which is the case in the US right now. If gun possession would suddenly be illegal then crimes involving guns would still be the same (possibly even increase a bit according to some people here). I believe the effects of making guns illegal would need a couple of generations to "kick in", even if everyone would have to hand in all their guns from the first day.
Holland was given as one example of where gun possession being illegal works great, Sweden was another one. It's the same here in Norway, and I think it's pretty much the same for the rest of Europe. You have to have a good reason if you want your gun application to be granted, which is usually just given for weapons used for hunting. Such guns have to be stored in special fuse boxes and be locked at all times. Even members of the "homeland defense" aren't allowed to possess weapons at home, and will have to go to a special building to receive their weapon when needed (damn slow if the Swedes are invading, but we're taking that chance).
Basically there are very few handguns and automatic rifles in circulation, and you need some special connections to get a gun at the black market. The police can do a razzia if they suspect you of possessing illegal weapons, and you'll be in trouble if they find you with a gun not accounted for. The typical robbery is done by someone in urgent need of money and is mainly done with a knife because it just takes too much effort in terms of time and money to get a gun.
Some time ago there were an unstable person who went crazy on the public bus. Afterwards he said he didn't know what he was doing, and it all felt like a strange dream. He injured some people, but none of them died if I remember correctly. He used a handaxe. If he had the choice he'd probably gone for the more convenient handgun and what felt like a distint dream to him could have ended even worse for the people involved.
One last example; I have an old friend and next-door neighbor who has had ADHD since he was a small kid. He never did any good at school and as all people he's had his ups and downs. In addition to that he has a great addiction for guns. I must trully say it's comforting to see that the most dangerous weapon he has managed to get hold off is a crossbow, no matter if his intentions with it are all good.
As for what this kid did; if he could have gotten his hands on more powerful weapons he'd probably used them. "Even if things are illegal you can get it" is kinda true, but the harder it is the less chance it is for someone to get it. I bet if you are incredible rich and have all the right connections you could get hold of a nuke as well, but I'm glad it was too hard for a random guy like this kid to get it.
Gun control is Holland works great because marijuana is legal. If you could legally get high every day, I'm pretty sure that would be your first choice for dealing with the stress and angst of your life, rather than to go shoot up a mall. If marijuana was legal in the USA, this kid would probably have just gotten stoned and listened to some chill music and smoked his problems away. Instead, he took a gun and murdered people. Joking aside, gun control can't work because guns will ALWAYS be available no matter what you do, and you can't just turn a blind eye to the problem and ignore it. As long as guns EXIST, we will need to defend ourselves.
For those who argue that gun bans need a few generations to kick in, riddle me this; hand grenades have ALWAYS been banned, from the beginning of their existence, and have never been "available" to the civilian population. So how did this kid get his hands on them? Doesn't matter, because he did, and if the gun was illegal I would be no small amount of money that he would have gotten that, too. I am not saying assault weapons should be illegal (how the hell do you conceal and assault weapon for self-defense, anyway?) but handguns are necessary.
All those who are pro-gun control, I am openly asking you a question that you have continued to blatantly IGNORE throughout this ENTIRE thread. Do you really believe that a gun ban will stop those who ignore the law from getting guns? Put your bias aside for a bit and think about this. Just remember; this kid got the grenades, didn't he? And grenades have never been available. Now imagine this same scenario (mall, shooting, etc.) and a few well-trained civilians in the mall were carrying a handgun with license. They would have ended his killing spree prematurely, and a lot of families would not be grieving right now. You can't just pretend that banning something erases it from existence. While this would be nice, you need to wake up and introduce yourself to the real world. Banning something removes it from the equation only for those who are willing to follow the law. Obviously, this kid didn't really have much respect for the law.
But I will humor you. I agree that guns should be banned. If guns were totally illegal, this incident would NEVER have happened. But I have a much, much better idea. We should ban murder. That's right. Crazy, I know...but if murder was illegal, this kid would never have been able to do what he did, because obviously it would be illegal so he can't do it. So write your congressman ASAP and tell him that if he wants to prevent future killing sprees, he needs to propose a bill that BANS killing sprees. That will probably fix the problem, right? By your logic it most certainly will!
First of all Lazer, we already established several pages ago that you're a giant fucking bigoted moron.
Second, there were no grenades. It just goes to show you haven't read a single thing about what happened besides the original post in this thread. He had zero grenades and he didn't buy the weapon, he stole it from his step-father who legally purchased it.
On December 07 2007 02:46 Lazerflip! wrote: Using Canada as an example is silly, too, because Canadians are very laid back and there are a LOT less black people in Canada than there are in the USA, and thus less crime. The cities are less foul, too. But I bet if a Canadian really wanted to shoot up the local shopping mall due to his Canadian teenage angst, he would not find it terribly hard to obtain a gun, and the opposition he would meet in committing the act would be laughable at best.
LOOOOOL I can't be the only one that read this.
i cant believe lazer is still arguing here. just look at his reasoning earlier...
learn to read what others have posted. they already addressed every single point you are pulling out of bs.
many have pointed out the "heroic" act to shoot the boy if someone had a gun in the mall is just as retarded. you could miss and shoot innocent bystanders. next thing we know, there will be many many "heroic" acts, where ppl claim they were doing the justice by shooting someone dead.
there are so many things that could go wrong with everyone having a gun walking every part of your country. before you know it, it will be too chaotic to clean the mess up except a massive military movement.
your analogy between banning gun and banning murder is completely illogical. B/c murder still happen, that means making murder illegal is not the right thing to do? Hence your sarcastic deduction that banning gun is of no use either b/c death related to guns will always happen?! (assuming you do not want to ban gunz, you do not want to ban murder either by your analogy? you either keep it consistent, or you do not use an inappropriate analogy)
WHAT THE FUK? You will always die anyway, even if the society provide you a good place to live, SO WHY BOTHER FARMING AND HERDING??? GO EAT PAPER AND DIE ALREADY?! It is illegal to drive without having the seatbelt on, but some people will not use it anyway, SO WHY DO WE NOT JUST REMOVE SEATBELT ALTOGETHER?!
as far as i see, your only method of reasoning is "Because one can get it anyway, we should legalize it" but you are applying this to Gun only. You use "he can get a grenade anyway even if its illegal" so "we should legalize gun too, cuz you can get it even if its banned" is completely retarded. Why not legalize grenade then using the very same logic? Why dont you go jump off a cliff b/c someone in the world will do it anyway even if its not a positive way of life?
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
On December 07 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is in response to HeadBangaa
The gun control movement may not be inherently good, but I believe it is the best thing for the United States. It is possible to move towards a crime free violence free culture with guns in hand, but, I think our chances are better at improving crime rates by slowly moving away from guns. The Swiss, French, Dutch, English, etc... all have much better crime rates and murder rates without guns. People link guns with death and violence. By denouncing firearms we denounce violence and collectively progress. That's my opinion at least.
Very reasonable. gg
Your reasoning is very flawed. "Has anyone died to a handgun while that law was in effect? Yes. Have lots of people died to handguns since that law was in effect? Yes.
There you have it: gun control laws not fucking working." We can say the same as below "Has anyone died to speeding while that law was in effect? Yes. Have lots of people died to speeding since that lwas was in effect? Yes.
There you have it: speeding law not fucking working."
I will just LOL you for this.
A good analogy of why it may not be working is shown below.
It's like having a lake exposed to radiation till there are no healthy fishes in the lake anymore, then ask why the heck doesnt the lake provide healthy fishes after stopping the radiation pollution.
When things become messed up, it takes much longer to reverse the mess.
On December 07 2007 14:47 aRod wrote: This is in response to Mayson
I agree, any local effort to ban handguns is silly considering the availability of handguns elsewhere in the country and the freedom of shipment. Have any logical forms of gun control influenced crime such as clip restrictions or cool down times?
Magazine restrctions do nothing.
If I can only carry a maximum of 10 rounds per magazine legally, and intend to go kill people, uh, the last thing I'll care about is the fucking law.
History shows that gun control laws do not fucking work. People need to understand this. There are gun control laws in effect everywhere.
You know how you stop crime? By getting criminals off the streets. Do you know how you do that? Hire more police officers.
But no--people get tax cuts, and thus less money is available for public services. So then police officers get fired, and there's less of a police presence nationwide.
Then crime rises, especially violent crime. So then people cry "wahh wahh gun control," when what they really mean to say is "I have no idea how to stop crime! Let's blame the tool with which criminals commit crimes the easiest!"
So then they leave themselves defenseless.
Someone who's anti-gun is just someone that hasn't been attacked, raped, or murdered yet.
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote: Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy.
I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing
You're pointing to a "Top 40" chain email, I'm talking about historical texts and notes from our founding fathers.
The Second Amendment refers to the legalized possession of firearms to state militias, because guns were illegal for private citizens. The reason they were allowed for militias was because the federal government was not allowed to have a standing army, but we still needed military protection from OUTSIDE attackers. If it was intended to protect us from our own government, it would serve no purpose at the time because our government had no military. The second Amendment establishes our first form of military. Furthermore, members of the militia needed to purchase the guns with their own money because neither the state or federal government had the money to provide them.
The modern incarnation of these militias is the National Guard, which is federally funded and can be called upon by the federal government, however the commander in-chief of the Nat'l Guard is the governor of the state each unit is representing, so they are a "state militia."
As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to say:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship
The National Guard is not a state militia.
It is a federal organization, just under the control of the state Governor.
A militia is something formed of the people and for the people; not by the government.
Lazerflip: Nobody said gun control would totally remove situations where handguns and automatic weapons were involved, just that it would be a lot harder to get such weapons. If it\'s a lot harder to get hands on such weapons then situations where highly lethal weapons are involved would be reduced. Because compare; a) you have to use special contacts at the black market (which not every regular guy have) to get an illegal weapon, or b) your dad have a handgun at his bedroom and an automatic rifle in the basement. Gun control doesn\'t remove situations with guns, but it would reduce the amount of situations where guns are used.
Except for the marijuana joke, which applies for Holland only, you didn\'t give any reason why gun control works in European countries but wouldn\'t work in the US. As I\'m not an American there might be some fundamental differences which is totally different between Europe and America, but it would be nice if you stated what these differences where instead of just saying \"Gun control won\'t work\". Because in other countries it actually reduce the problem.
Imagine this same scenario (mall, shooting, etc.) and a few well-trained civilians in the mall were carrying a handgun with license. They would have ended his killing spree prematurely, and a lot of families would not be grieving right now.
Would just mean the kid would take a look around and go the a place onlu consisting of kids and old women. If one of the old women pulled out her gun and shot him it wouldn\'t matter because he would already have been able to kill multiple people because of the surprise factor, and he wouldn\'t have bothered if he got shot as he was planning to commit suicide anyways.
For those who argue that gun bans need a few generations to kick in, riddle me this; hand grenades have ALWAYS been banned, from the beginning of their existence, and have never been \"available\" to the civilian population. So how did this kid get his hands on them?
What I meant with a \"few generations to kick in\" is that even if you ban guns and force everyone to hand in their guns (would have to pay them what the guns were worth). However it would still be a lot of weapons in circulation, so situations involving guns would still be on a high level for a long time until it at some day was so freaking hard to find someone who knew someone who knew someone who has an illegal gun.
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
On December 07 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is in response to HeadBangaa
The gun control movement may not be inherently good, but I believe it is the best thing for the United States. It is possible to move towards a crime free violence free culture with guns in hand, but, I think our chances are better at improving crime rates by slowly moving away from guns. The Swiss, French, Dutch, English, etc... all have much better crime rates and murder rates without guns. People link guns with death and violence. By denouncing firearms we denounce violence and collectively progress. That's my opinion at least.
Very reasonable. gg
It's like having a lake exposed to radiation till there are no healthy fishes in the lake anymore, then ask why the heck doesnt the lake provide healthy fishes after stopping the radiation pollution.
When things become messed up, it takes much longer to reverse the mess.
People can sit here all day and go "It worked in Holland!" all fucking day long, and I won't give a shit.
It also worked for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, etc.
Those countries it "worked" in it worked for for other reasons. It would not work in the US. It's too different here.
Aruba has gun control, and despite that it's still my favorite spot on the planet. Do you know why there's no gun crime there? There were never any guns to begin with.
The US has lots of guns--both legal and illegal.
The legally owned guns aren't being misuses, with the exception of accidents as a result of negligence. Did you know the majority of accidents are "committed" by people with a long history of non-criminal, but civil infractions?
Imagine that: criminals have a criminal history long before they ever actually kill anyone, and people who accidentally shoot themselves, their family, and their friends, have a long history of being fucking idiots.
"The legally owned guns aren't being misuses, with the exception of accidents as a result of negligence. Did you know the majority of accidents are "committed" by people with a long history of non-criminal, but civil infractions?"
On December 07 2007 22:37 Jibba wrote: he didn't buy the weapon, he stole it from his step-father who legally purchased it.
Perhaps if the money put into gun production can be put into more civilized areas, we will reduce the # of criminals.
Would just mean the kid would take a look around and go the a place onlu consisting of kids and old women. If one of the old women pulled out her gun and shot him it wouldn\'t matter because he would already have been able to kill multiple people because of the surprise factor, and he wouldn\'t have bothered if he got shot as he was planning to commit suicide anyways.
Wouldn't matter? What the fuck?
Dead guy don't shoot back.
You're in a mall, some fuckbag opens up on people, and you draw your legally owned and concealed weapon carried on your person, and you put two in his torso. He goes down, and he isn't getting back up.
We all know not everyone are perfect and responsible.
There will be many many "heroic" acts, and soon the court will be too busy on these cases. Who are one to judge who is the "bad" guy, and you must shoot? Not everything is black and white.
There is a gross potential for misuse of legalized weapons.
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
It's quite simple: handguns are banned in Washington D.C.
Has anyone died to a handgun while that law was in effect? Yes. Have lots of people died to handguns since that law was in effect? Yes.
There you have it: gun control laws not fucking working.
Well, I'll ignore for the moment the fact that you haven't addressed the statistics which refute your original claim. Did you even look at the links? Feel free to comment on those when convenient.
Do you really think that because people still get killed by guns, that we should give up entirely on gun control laws?
No policy is perfect. By your logic, since thousands of people die of drunk driving each year, it's obvious drunk driving laws aren't working, therefore we should just get rid of laws against drunk driving and make it all legal?
Not to mention the fact that gun control laws vary widely in how they are written and how effective they are. A handgun ban in one particular city, I think most gun control advocates would agree, is not the best way to go about reducing the amount of gun violence. Most gun control laws do NOT aim to ban all firearms. And the vast majority of gun control advocates aren't pushing those kind of laws. Most gun control strategy is focused on regulating the purchase of weapons.
On December 07 2007 23:31 yisun518 wrote: "The legally owned guns aren't being misuses, with the exception of accidents as a result of negligence. Did you know the majority of accidents are "committed" by people with a long history of non-criminal, but civil infractions?"
why do you not get that giving everybody a gun does not make a place any safer. the amount of psychological stress will cause loss in working efficiency at any work place. any heated debate will feel like holding a grenade with a loose trigger.
Those countries it "worked" in it worked for for other reasons. It would not work in the US. It's too different here.
Why do you think being pro-gun means giving a gun to everyone?
That's the most twisted, asinine thing I've ever heard from the anti-gun camp.
Some people can handle the responsibility. Some can't.
Oh, and enough with the "people can't control themselves" bullshit.
"John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
Lott concluded that "allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not increase gun crime or fatal gun accident rates."
"More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."
"More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)
Hey, imagine that: law-abiding citizens following the laws and not becoming fucking criminals.
I wonder why there are all those cases of emo kids stealing guns from relative or buying from a shop at legal age then going onto a massacre suicide spree.
O, maybe b/c we have too many legal guns available?
When guns are legal to be carried anywhere, who is to stop giving everyone a gun?
"violent gun crimes" then what is "non violent gun crime"? I dont think they included all misuse of guns at all in that statistics.
EDIT: Anyone + GUN = BAD There is no black and white. You cant say someone is just 100% good or bad.
On the micro view, it may seems to be good to defend against armed criminals with your own guns. But on the macro view, this can only go worse and worse in a society as a whole.
Not to mention a perfectly law abiding citizen turning into a suicide bomber with self made bombs out of no where?! Can you honestly say everyone you know in your LIFE is a perfectly responsible person? If everyone can be perfectly responsible about things, why are there so many relationship problems and dilemna among friends.
On December 07 2007 14:47 aRod wrote: This is in response to Mayson
I agree, any local effort to ban handguns is silly considering the availability of handguns elsewhere in the country and the freedom of shipment. Have any logical forms of gun control influenced crime such as clip restrictions or cool down times?
Magazine restrctions do nothing.
If I can only carry a maximum of 10 rounds per magazine legally, and intend to go kill people, uh, the last thing I'll care about is the fucking law.
History shows that gun control laws do not fucking work. People need to understand this. There are gun control laws in effect everywhere.
You know how you stop crime? By getting criminals off the streets. Do you know how you do that? Hire more police officers.
But no--people get tax cuts, and thus less money is available for public services. So then police officers get fired, and there's less of a police presence nationwide.
Then crime rises, especially violent crime. So then people cry "wahh wahh gun control," when what they really mean to say is "I have no idea how to stop crime! Let's blame the tool with which criminals commit crimes the easiest!"
So then they leave themselves defenseless.
Someone who's anti-gun is just someone that hasn't been attacked, raped, or murdered yet.
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote: Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy.
I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing
You're pointing to a "Top 40" chain email, I'm talking about historical texts and notes from our founding fathers.
The Second Amendment refers to the legalized possession of firearms to state militias, because guns were illegal for private citizens. The reason they were allowed for militias was because the federal government was not allowed to have a standing army, but we still needed military protection from OUTSIDE attackers. If it was intended to protect us from our own government, it would serve no purpose at the time because our government had no military. The second Amendment establishes our first form of military. Furthermore, members of the militia needed to purchase the guns with their own money because neither the state or federal government had the money to provide them.
The modern incarnation of these militias is the National Guard, which is federally funded and can be called upon by the federal government, however the commander in-chief of the Nat'l Guard is the governor of the state each unit is representing, so they are a "state militia."
As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to say:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship
The National Guard is not a state militia.
It is a federal organization, just under the control of the state Governor.
A militia is something formed of the people and for the people; not by the government.
Don't confuse the two.
No, it's just a federally funded militia. The Constitution allows for Congress to fund state militia, and the NG serves as both a national and state militia. At the very best you can argue that it's not truly a state militia, but as I said it serves as both. You cannot, however, argue that it isn't a militia because it's written into US law as an organized militia.
And again, the militias of 1786 did not serve to protect the people from our own government. They served to protect the people from other governments, in place of a standing army.
* 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies. * 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI). * 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI). * 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.
Such bad puns. :x
Anyways, I'm not going to bother reading all of those.
On December 08 2007 00:10 yisun518 wrote: I wonder why there are all those cases of emo kids stealing guns from relative or buying from a shop at legal age then going onto a massacre suicide spree.
O, maybe b/c we have too many legal guns available?
When guns are legal to be carried anywhere, who is to stop giving everyone a gun?
"violent gun crimes" then what is "non violent gun crime"? I dont think they included all misuse of guns at all in that statistics.
EDIT: Anyone + GUN = BAD There is no black and white. You cant say someone is just 100% good or bad.
On the micro view, it may seems to be good to defend against armed criminals with your own guns. But on the macro view, this can only go worse and worse in a society as a whole.
Not to mention a perfectly law abiding citizen turning into a suicide bomber with self made bombs out of no where?! Can you honestly say everyone you know in your LIFE is a perfectly responsible person? If everyone can be perfectly responsible about things, why are there so many relationship problems and dilemna among friends.
Stop posting.
1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.
2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.
3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.
4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.
Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.
Would just mean the kid would take a look around and go the a place onlu consisting of kids and old women. If one of the old women pulled out her gun and shot him it wouldn\'t matter because he would already have been able to kill multiple people because of the surprise factor, and he wouldn\'t have bothered if he got shot as he was planning to commit suicide anyways.
You're in a mall, some fuckbag opens up on people, and you draw your legally owned and concealed weapon carried on your person, and you put two in his torso. He goes down, and he isn't getting back up.
There you go. Shooting over.
Just means he would be more careful of where he picks his spot to wreak havoc. I bet he'd end up at the children's store or a place where old people group together who are less likely to defend themselves properly. He would still be able to kill multiple people before the guy outside could take him down with his gun. When I said "wouldn't matter" I meant it wouldn't matter for the kid if someone shoot him or he shoots himself, the risk of getting shot doesn't stop him from going crazymode and shooting random people.
One thing I think can be fundamentally different from US to European countries where gun control works is in terms of the military. USA needs good soldiers who know how to handle a weapon. If you are used to guns and practice some shooting with your dad and uncle from you are a little kid chances are that you can aim better and you will already know the basics once you enter the army. In Europe most youths touch a gun for the first time when they enter the army, doesn't need to say they might need more training before they are "combat ready". And on a sidenote; if most people have a gun and there's lots of guns in circulation then a possible invasion force would meet more resistance. Any thoughts on this aspect?
* 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies. * 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI). * 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI). * 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.
Such bad puns. :x
Anyways, I'm not going to bother reading all of those.
The point of research is to uncover truth through research, and repeating it to prove validity.
The fact that his studies have been debated is evidence of competent doctors doing the jobs they've been hired to do and has no bearing on the legitimacy of Lott's work whatsoever.
On December 08 2007 00:10 yisun518 wrote: I wonder why there are all those cases of emo kids stealing guns from relative or buying from a shop at legal age then going onto a massacre suicide spree.
O, maybe b/c we have too many legal guns available?
When guns are legal to be carried anywhere, who is to stop giving everyone a gun?
"violent gun crimes" then what is "non violent gun crime"? I dont think they included all misuse of guns at all in that statistics.
EDIT: Anyone + GUN = BAD There is no black and white. You cant say someone is just 100% good or bad.
On the micro view, it may seems to be good to defend against armed criminals with your own guns. But on the macro view, this can only go worse and worse in a society as a whole.
Not to mention a perfectly law abiding citizen turning into a suicide bomber with self made bombs out of no where?! Can you honestly say everyone you know in your LIFE is a perfectly responsible person? If everyone can be perfectly responsible about things, why are there so many relationship problems and dilemna among friends.
Stop posting.
1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.
2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.
3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.
4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.
Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.
Would just mean the kid would take a look around and go the a place onlu consisting of kids and old women. If one of the old women pulled out her gun and shot him it wouldn\'t matter because he would already have been able to kill multiple people because of the surprise factor, and he wouldn\'t have bothered if he got shot as he was planning to commit suicide anyways.
You're in a mall, some fuckbag opens up on people, and you draw your legally owned and concealed weapon carried on your person, and you put two in his torso. He goes down, and he isn't getting back up.
There you go. Shooting over.
Just means he would be more careful of where he picks his spot to wreak havoc. I bet he'd end up at the children's store or a place where old people group together who are less likely to defend themselves properly. He would still be able to kill multiple people before the guy outside could take him down with his gun. When I said "wouldn't matter" I meant it wouldn't matter for the kid if someone shoot him or he shoots himself, the risk of getting shot doesn't stop him from going crazymode and shooting random people.
One thing I think can be fundamentally different from US to European countries where gun control works is in terms of the military. USA needs good soldiers who know how to handle a weapon. If you are used to guns and practice some shooting with your dad and uncle from you are a little kid chances are that you can aim better and you will already know the basics once you enter the army. In Europe most youths touch a gun for the first time when they enter the army, doesn't need to say they might need more training before they are "combat ready". And on a sidenote; if most people have a gun and there's lots of guns in circulation then a possible invasion force would meet more resistance. Any thoughts on this aspect?
The parts of the country with the highest concentration of legally-owned firearms have the lowest crime rates.
With regards to an invasion force: it would not survive in an armed country. Imagine that you, a soldier, have been deployed, and you have just invaded a country with liberal, but reasonable gun laws. You know that outside of the military, many people own firearms for their personal protection, protection of their families, their property; for hunting and sporting purposes, as well as for general-purpose.
You wouldn't make it through a single state. Every street, one house at a time, you'd get shot at, and eventually, the citizens would overthrow an organized, uniformed invasion force.
It would be a tactical nightmare.
By the way: shootings are already carefully planned. Why do you think shootings occur in public places that are by law or by policy "gun-free"?
I can't go to campus and bring a legally-licensed firearm with me. It's against the rules. As a law-abiding citizen, I'm not going to break the rules.
This is why there are shootings at school, workplaces, and malls, and not at NRA meetings, police stations, and shooting ranges.
Criminals avoid areas of potential resistance. Gun control would eliminate any and all resistance by a law-abiding citizen.
On December 08 2007 00:10 yisun518 wrote: I wonder why there are all those cases of emo kids stealing guns from relative or buying from a shop at legal age then going onto a massacre suicide spree.
O, maybe b/c we have too many legal guns available?
When guns are legal to be carried anywhere, who is to stop giving everyone a gun?
"violent gun crimes" then what is "non violent gun crime"? I dont think they included all misuse of guns at all in that statistics.
EDIT: Anyone + GUN = BAD There is no black and white. You cant say someone is just 100% good or bad.
On the micro view, it may seems to be good to defend against armed criminals with your own guns. But on the macro view, this can only go worse and worse in a society as a whole.
Not to mention a perfectly law abiding citizen turning into a suicide bomber with self made bombs out of no where?! Can you honestly say everyone you know in your LIFE is a perfectly responsible person? If everyone can be perfectly responsible about things, why are there so many relationship problems and dilemna among friends.
Stop posting.
1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.
2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.
3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.
4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.
Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.
On December 08 2007 00:26 Jibba wrote: Lott's work has been battled back and forth.
* 1977 John Lott and David Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?” Journal of Legal Studies. * 1998 John Lott, “The Concealed-Handgun Debate.” Journal of Legal Studies. * 2000 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (AEI). * 2002 John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Second Edition (AEI). * 2003 Ian Ayres and John Donohue, “Shooting Down the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis, Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, “Confirming ‘More Guns, Less Crime,” Stanford Law Review. * 2003 Ayres and Donohue, “The Latest Misfires in Support of the ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ Hypothesis,” Stanford Law Review.
Such bad puns. :x
Anyways, I'm not going to bother reading all of those.
The point of research is to uncover truth through research, and repeating it to prove validity.
The fact that his studies have been debated is evidence of competent doctors doing the jobs they've been hired to do and has no bearing on the legitimacy of Lott's work whatsoever.
How so? I think the legitimacy of his work is surely up for dispute. I haven't read any of the reports on that list and I don't plan to any time soon, so I have no place to comment one way or another on the legitimacy of the work, but I was pointing out that it can't be taken as the "definitive source" until you read the objections to it.
So now you understand why the Kellerman study being quoted left and right by anti-gun people is asinine.
The point is, Lott's work hasn't been disproven, or shown to be inherently flawed confounded. His work, while receiving constructive criticism, is typically statistically-significant, and not subjectively-biased in any overt way.
I'd like to see one study from the anti-gun camp that has the same level of professionalism and objectivity. I won't hold my breath.
Edit: I think you'd greatly benefit from taking a class on research methods. You can learn quite a bit, including how to tell when a published study is a bunch of crap.
1. The problem is not the availability of guns. The problem is a kid deciding to go kill people. Please learn the difference. If guns are not available, other means of destruction will be used.
2. A non-violent gun crime is one where a gun is used to coerce, or intimidate.
3. The statistics, facts, and figures from unbiased sources have consistently shown that as law-abiding citizens are allowed the privilege to carry a concealed weapon on their person, crime typically decreases. Those that are legally-licensed to carry are not the ones committing crimes, thus they are not a part of the problem.
4. Guns are not legally-available to everyone.
Get your fucking facts straight before you attempt to talk down to me. You're from Canada, probably favor gun control (since Canada has much stricter levels of it), and for some reason seem to think you know what you're talking about.
You don't.
1. And having guns easily available did not contribute to any thoughts process the kid went thru before going onto this gun spree? I would rather have him go knife ppl rather than shooting.
2. And non-violent crime figures are not shown in your provided statistics, these are still problems that are potentially more dangerous. And law-abiding citizens are not necessarily perfectly responsible at all time.
3. Legally-licensed guns are stolen all the time for future misuse. (Eg. Irresponsible kids stealing parents/grandparents guns and commit a shooting spree. Eg. Criminals stealing guns from gunshop, or houses) We are back to the availability of guns contributing to crimes.
4. And who cannot get it? Obviously mentally retarded people, right? I am talking about seemingly normal people, the average joes. Road rage and drunken bar fight can all turn into a gun fight when one party take the elevated tension as a direct threat to himself/herself.
The psychological impact to a society is far too chaotic. And people seldomly think reasonably in an emergency. There could be too many trigger happy moments, or misinterpretation of an argument which turn into a disaster with guns on your belt.
Argue objectively, the worst thing you could do is attacking another person directly in a debate.
Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control look like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
Thats one nice post.
Why thank you However if you dont mind could you edit your post and requote me? Ive made like 20 small edits to my post the last 20 minutes xD I know its a bad habit... I should stop writing stuff fast and then trying to organize the post once its already posted ;(
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
It's quite simple: handguns are banned in Washington D.C.
Has anyone died to a handgun while that law was in effect? Yes. Have lots of people died to handguns since that law was in effect? Yes.
There you have it: gun control laws not fucking working.
Stop posting facts! Please! FFS! Don't you understand, these people are not responding to facts. We need to try something else. Maybe if we spray silly string on them, then they will listen. It's worth a shot...
lol at you both, if you think washington DC is a great example of how gun control fails, lol shoot yourself in the foot boyyyssss your obviously missing the real reason why thers crime in washington DC, IT AINT YOUR LOCAL SUBURB
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote: How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
It's quite simple: handguns are banned in Washington D.C.
Has anyone died to a handgun while that law was in effect? Yes. Have lots of people died to handguns since that law was in effect? Yes.
There you have it: gun control laws not fucking working.
Stop posting facts! Please! FFS! Don't you understand, these people are not responding to facts. We need to try something else. Maybe if we spray silly string on them, then they will listen. It's worth a shot...
Dont you think its disrespectful to the admins to create a new account and keep posting in a thread that you were just banned for posting in? If they ban you that means that you arnt wanted here.
Guess they will have to ban me again, or something. Good luck with that.
I believe in RIGHTS. It is their right to ban me for speaking my opinion, as it is their site and not mine. But it is my right to have my opinion heard, so if I want to circumvent a ban, I obviously can and will do so. I just want to warn you that if you suppress any opinion you don't agree with, you will end up with some very boring and one-sided discussions. But if you really want to, sure, go ahead and ban the most intelligent and sensible person in the thread. And by the way, while I'm on a tirade which will probably cause people to hate me anyway, I might as well say; what the fuck are you foreigners doing in this thread anyway? You don't know anything about our rights as Americans, and your opinion on the matter doesn't really fucking matter either. If you want guns to be banned, go tell your country to ban them. Oh, wait, your country already did ban them. Problem solved, shut the hell up, go to another topic and suck more Korean dick.
P.S. 10 bucks says someone deletes this entire post. Good thing it only took me about a minute and twenty seconds to type it.
I would never lobby for such a blatantly conservative and biased organization which ignores as many facts as their opponents. The NRA is just as ridiculous as the pro-gun control people. I, myself, stand on the happy middle ground that I like to call "common sense".
On December 08 2007 02:33 Lazerflip... wrote: I would never lobby for such a blatantly conservative and biased organization which ignores as many facts as their opponents. The NRA is just as ridiculous as the pro-gun control people. I, myself, stand on the happy middle ground that I like to call "common sense".
No, it isn't. This is not a government owned public message board. This is private property, if the owners want you to shut the fuck up, then you shut the fuck up.
I, myself, stand on the happy middle ground that I like to call "common sense".
Middle ground as in "Canada is safer because it has less black people" ?
No, it isn't. This is not a government owned public message board. This is private property, if the owners want you to shut the fuck up, then you shut the fuck up.
I, myself, stand on the happy middle ground that I like to call "common sense".
Middle ground as in "Canada is safer because it has less black people" ?
Not really. I myself said "they own this site and it is their right to ban me if they want". What part of that did you not understand? As for Canada being safer because it has less black people, well, what can I say? Is this racist? Yes. Does that make it untrue? No. Racism is not "hating other races" but acknowledging the difference between races. If you acknowledge that black people have darker skin than you, you are being "racist". This is not always a bad thing. You confuse bigotry with racism, though, and for that I forgive you. What I can't forgive you for is being a total jimmy hat and thinking that just because you own a place you can tell anyone you want to shut the fuck up. My argument was not that they have no right to shut me up here, my argument was that to do so would be a bit Nazi-esque. And you can't ban me or shut me up even if you wanted to, so that is irrelevant. You will hear my opinion if I have to come to your door, tie you up, and shove it down your throat while I anally rape your sister and wife because I have an illegally purchased gun and you do not because you were unable to purchase one, and as my cum slides down the crack of your 12 year old sister's ass, and she cries and bleeds and begs for mercy, you will curse the day you decided guns were wrong, and you will curse the fact that I have one and you do not, and you will go right out to your local Wal Mart and buy a handgun, load it, put it under your pillow, and you will be ready for the next evil intruder who comes into your house to take away your lovely sister's v-card. You will have learned a lesson.
On December 08 2007 03:01 dronebabo wrote: hahahahahaha
I don\'t lobby, I annihilate. I annihilate weak arguments with my carpet-bombing of logic.
P.S. If you really call me on the 10 dollars, I will delete my own post and win the bet. I said \"someone\" would delete the post. When last I checked, I myself fall under the category of someone, so what you have here is an impossible bet (for you).
On December 08 2007 03:01 dronebabo wrote: hahahahahaha
I don\'t lobby, I annihilate. I annihilate weak arguments with my carpet-bombing of logic.
P.S. If you really call me on the 10 dollars, I will delete my own post and win the bet. I said \"someone\" would delete the post. When last I checked, I myself fall under the category of someone, so what you have here is an impossible bet (for you).
oh trust me they can un-delete your post as many times as they want. pay up fool
On December 08 2007 02:28 Lazerflip... wrote: Guess they will have to ban me again, or something. Good luck with that.
I believe in RIGHTS. It is their right to ban me for speaking my opinion, as it is their site and not mine. But it is my right to have my opinion heard, so if I want to circumvent a ban, I obviously can and will do so. I just want to warn you that if you suppress any opinion you don't agree with, you will end up with some very boring and one-sided discussions. But if you really want to, sure, go ahead and ban the most intelligent and sensible person in the thread. And by the way, while I'm on a tirade which will probably cause people to hate me anyway, I might as well say; what the fuck are you foreigners doing in this thread anyway? You don't know anything about our rights as Americans, and your opinion on the matter doesn't really fucking matter either. If you want guns to be banned, go tell your country to ban them. Oh, wait, your country already did ban them. Problem solved, shut the hell up, go to another topic and suck more Korean dick.
P.S. 10 bucks says someone deletes this entire post. Good thing it only took me about a minute and twenty seconds to type it.
On December 08 2007 03:01 dronebabo wrote: hahahahahaha
I don't lobby, I annihilate. I annihilate weak arguments with my carpet-bombing of logic.
P.S. If you really call me on the 10 dollars, I will delete my own post and win the bet. I said "someone" would delete the post. When last I checked, I myself fall under the category of someone, so what you have here is an impossible bet (for you).
You are wrong. You cannot delete posts. Editing your post so that it shows nothing is not deleting, because your post will still remain; there will just be nothing in it but a space. That means you did not delete it. You even said "entire" post, which is impossible to do unless you are a Moderator. Because you cannot delete your own post, you can only win your bet if a Mod deletes your post.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
On December 08 2007 03:21 Hot_Bid wrote: Editing your post so that it shows nothing is not deleting, because your post will still remain; there will just be nothing in it but a space. That means you did not delete it. You even said "entire" post, which is impossible to do unless you are a Moderator. Because you cannot delete your own post, you can only win your bet if a Mod deletes your post.
What if he was a genius hacker who took down the entire teamliquid web site? Since that eliminates all the web site's content, it would technically be deleting, so it's not quite impossible.
On December 08 2007 05:28 Rev0lution wrote: People having guns doesn't really solve mass murder. Having cops in the mall and metal detectors do solve the problem.
You can own a gun, im not really for gun banning.
everyone has guns = bad
none has guns = bad
Family responsibility = good
mom checking kid's room for guns = good
dad locking his AK-47 = good
counseling = good
Prozac = bad
rofl metal detectors IN A MALL?!? how many metal stuff do you think is sold in a mall.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Criminals are therefore the messengers of destruction.
I am a law-abiding citizen, and pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, myself included.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
On December 08 2007 05:28 Rev0lution wrote: People having guns doesn't really solve mass murder. Having cops in the mall and metal detectors do solve the problem.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, you're completely wrong.
Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Criminals are therefore the messengers of destruction.
I am a law-abiding citizen, and pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, myself included.
you will if you take those nasty anti-depressents. you'll either light up a whole mall or paint the wall with your brains.
On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote: Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot.
Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present.
Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, you're completely wrong.
Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur.
hmmm lets see...
Purpose of a gun: to kill something Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere
Really doesn't get much more elementary than that...
On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote: Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot.
Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present.
Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself.
1. Any normal human being is going to fucking cry when a gun is pointed at them. That point is completely moot.
2. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." In the time it took the poor emo kid to kill nine people, he recieved no armed resistance from a legally-armed civilian.
The police are not responsible for individuals' safety. Besides, when I'm waving my fucking CCW at them, with the weapon pointed at the floor in ready-safe position, they aren't going to shoot me.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, you're completely wrong.
Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur.
hmmm lets see...
Purpose of a gun: to kill something Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere
Really doesn't get much more elementary than that...
Purpose of a gun: to ensure my own fucking safety against cuntbags who'd kill me
Stop regurgitating the Brady campaign's bullshit like a parrot. Think for yourself for a change.
Well, it'd be asinine for anyone to claim it's video games. The only study every printed in a highly-regarded journal was retracted due to unseen problem. The study was confounded, and thus the results were never statistically-significant.
Jack Thompson is still citing it, however. It just shows you how intelligent he is. The APA realizes they made a mistake, and he thinks he knows better than they do.
Oh, lack of evidence is hardly enough to deter American politicians and media members from criticizing video games.
The only case I've seen that really seemed directly influenced by games was when a couple of 13 year olds hijacked like 3 cars in a row in an attempt to escape police. I think they said they got the idea from GTA3. That was pretty awesome.
On December 08 2007 05:18 Rev0lution wrote: Imagine 50% of the mall having guns, how in the hell do you know who the actual shooter is?
The fucking cuntbag with the rifle shooting people is the one you shoot.
Honestly I think you'd piss your pants if you saw someone shooting at you with an ak-47 when all you have is a crappy pistol. Second of all you'll probably get shot by the police in confusement if they're present.
Besides, the guy was a damn emo, just shout that you left a nasty message on his facebook or myspace and he'll probably turn the gun to himself.
1. Any normal human being is going to fucking cry when a gun is pointed at them. That point is completely moot.
2. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." In the time it took the poor emo kid to kill nine people, he recieved no armed resistance from a legally-armed civilian.
The police are not responsible for individuals' safety. Besides, when I'm waving my fucking CCW at them, with the weapon pointed at the floor in ready-safe position, they aren't going to shoot me.
On December 08 2007 01:53 DrainX wrote: Just seems to me like all the pro-gun people are stuck in some kind of cold war mindset. The "criminals" have lots of guns. We have to have more guns among the public and in the homes to keep us safe. In turn the criminals who are about to break into a house will have to be armed to feel safe since everyone has guns in their homes. The solution isnt to get more weapons than your "opponent". The solution is to get a lower total amount of weapons.
Since the overall amount of guns in the country is so high, everyone needs one to feel safe. When you try to ban them the effects arnt instant. The problem is only indirectly that guns are legal. The big problem is the total amount of guns. By banning them the supply will still be almost the same for some time. The good effects are only going to come in time. Maybe there are some peaks right after a new ban is made but they are only short term.
I dont see how you could argue against this. If there is a lower amount of total guns in a society then the number of people owning guns will be lower. A lower supply means you have a slimmer chance of running into someone armed. A lower chance of running into someone who is armed means you have a lower chance of getting shot.
If europe didnt exist I might actualy listen to the argument about how gun legislation could never work. I might consider my argument above only being theory. We do however already have an example of what a society with gun control looks like. Your argument is that guns are needed among the public and in the homes for protection to solve the problem with criminals having guns. Over here we dont have that problem to start with. Our system works just fine and fewer people die each year. I cant see why you would prefer not to change.
Petty criminals over here dont have guns. The guy I buy my weed from doesnt have a gun. It would be stupid of him to have one. Selling weed is risky if the police raid your house, but having a gun at home would be even riskier. The only people who have guns here are heavy criminals and they mostly use them on eachother anyway. Since guns are so rare here they are very easy to notice and so much harder to transfer/store/use. If someone here sees a gun it would be directly reported to the police since there are no legal guns other than hunting rifles.
Do you think the price you would have to pay to make the US society work without guns is too high to pay? That the transition would be too hard to make? Do you think that there is something about the american culture that makes it impossible to ever remove guns from society? Or do you think living with a higher weapon fatality rate and guns in everyones pocket is a society you prefer?
If you did pick the last option I just think that your view of humanity is condescending. Are we so barbaric in your eyes that we need guns to have a working society? You might be saying that the US is so different and that there are already so many guns there and that it will never be able to change. Why not? Of course nothing is going to change if no one is trying. But cutting the supply on weapons and reducing the total number of weapons in a country on a long timescale isnt hard, you just need to get started. One step in the right direction is making guns illegal.
Who would want to work as a cop in a place where you know its very likely that the guy you just pulled over is armed. Who wants to go to a bar when you know there is a chance thats not too slim that some idiot there you might get into a fight with is armed. Havnt we moved past that yet? It sounds so distant and barbaric to me. I just cant see why you would want to keep the problems you have when you can clearly see there are other options.
GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTIONS!!!! DEATH TO THE GUNS!!!!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No, you're completely wrong.
Guns kill people. This is why cars are banned so that drunken accidents don't occur.
hmmm lets see...
Purpose of a gun: to kill something Purpose of a car: to get you somewhere
Really doesn't get much more elementary than that...
Purpose of a gun: to ensure my own fucking safety against cuntbags who'd kill me
Stop regurgitating the Brady campaign's bullshit like a parrot. Think for yourself for a change.
Actually as you might want to add, the purpose of a gun is not to kill something. Look at what % of guns are used for targeting animals, what % are used for targeting humans, and what % are used for targeting paper etc... you might be surprised. I've launched off a few thousand rounds from various firearms, and have never taken a life...
Stop with the "law abiding" shit already dumbass, you keep mocking my views saying "baaa the sheep" yet you use that super cliche conservative phrase....
its not a law abiding citizen... its just ANY citizen withouth a criminal record (etc), so if somebody who is 19yo and doesnt have any record of a crime implies that this person will never make miss use of his weapons in his life? are u retarded?
Sorry but in this huge ass thread i lost the point behind supporting the right to posses automatic rifles... u said they arent good for personal defense (obviously), so why should they be allowed? i mean in that case we should also allow bazookas and why not, even a tank.
Actually in texas you can get RIDICULOUS guns, like a fucking machine gun.... how is a machine gun a defensive weapon? -_- please elaborate on why these weapons should be allowed.
I mean, if you are against those atleast i could see you are a true believer in armed self defense... however if you support the possesions of those weapons you are just an hypocrit.
this is ridiculous, i believe in Rev0lution, because we cant even tell from whos the real shooter, because everyone is shooting at one person yes, we can realize that, but when your in a life-death situation, wouldnt you brain go nuts on where to shoot? i mean, your trying to protect YOURSELF, if you have no time for thinking
You're assuming that anyone who carries a concealed weapon would engage a shooter in public.
The right to carry a concealed firearm does not obligate you to do anything. It's the same thing for off-duty police officers.
So, say there are 1000 people in a mall, plus the shooter. The shooter begins to shoot people at a given time, and out of the 1000 people in the mall, let's just say there are 10 people with CCW permits.
Out of those 10 people, not all 10 will engage.
The point is that, if people are not allowed the right to conceal a weapon with the purpose of self-defense, there's no chance whatsoever of a shooter in public being taken down.
Yeah, because people that are media drones do nothing but regurgitate the intellectual crap fed to them by the Brady campaign, and then people who use logic, statistics, and history to support their views get attacked, so we have to defend ourselves.
On December 08 2007 10:24 Mayson wrote: Yeah, because people that are media drones do nothing but regurgitate the intellectual crap fed to them by the Brady campaign, and then people who use logic, statistics, and history to support their views get attacked, so we have to defend ourselves.
Pretty accurate synopsis of this thread, actually.
On December 08 2007 11:07 Mayson wrote: This is an immaculate example of why comparing two different countries is intellectual fraud.
I agree. Everyone should keep their problems to them selves. Since we are all different in some regards we should stop trying to learn from each others misstakes.
Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates.
Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates.
Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Are people actually saying that restricting guns significantly lowers the amount of crimes (I haven't read through the thread yet)?
While there are a lot of crimes that could not happen without the gun laws that we have today, the shooting of this thread being a prime example, unless these crimes are a high percentage of the total crimes, gun laws do not effect the crime rate. And I think most anti-gun people believe this. But that still leaves the fact that if the same amount of violent crimes occurs with, or without guns, the ones with guns will result in more damage. The topic of this thread is an example of this as well. If these psychos did not have guns they simply would not be able to go on these rampages.
On December 08 2007 11:18 Mayson wrote: Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends?
On December 08 2007 11:18 Mayson wrote: Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends?
On December 08 2007 11:18 Mayson wrote: Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Ok so you agree that having guns or not having guns make no difference whatsoever. Then, what the hell do you need a gun for? To show it off to your friends?
That's not what I said at all.
I said that gun laws make no statistically-significant difference on crime.
As has been stated numerous times, law-abiding citizens are not the problem. The problem is criminals, and their access to firearms.
However, criminals do not purchase firearms legally. They are criminals; by definition, they do not follow the laws.
Therefore, laws will have no substantial effect on the illegal ownership and use of firearms.
Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates.
Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Are people actually saying that restricting guns significantly lowers the amount of crimes (I haven't read through the thread yet)?
While there are a lot of crimes that could not happen without the gun laws that we have today, the shooting of this thread being a prime example, unless these crimes are a high percentage of the total crimes, gun laws do not effect the crime rate. And I think most anti-gun people believe this. But that still leaves the fact that if the same amount of violent crimes occurs with, or without guns, the ones with guns will result in more damage. The topic of this thread is an example of this as well. If these psychos did not have guns they simply would not be able to go on these rampages.
Those in favor of gun control who have not done their homework firmly believe that gun control has a positive effect on crime rates.
Apparently they know more about criminal behavior than criminologists do, as they keep repeatedly affirming their belief that criminals actually do not break the law when it comes to acquisition of firearms, and that gun control will actually do something.
The gun control laws already in place in various parts of the country have had little to no effect on crime rates.
I'm sorry, but seeing as the anti-gun camp is full of people who disregard unbiased, statistically-significant studies, and then make up their own statistics and "facts" on the spot, I absolutely cannot respect that position.
You said "There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates"
I'm not arguing with you on the subject of firearm availability to criminals - even though a 10 yrs old would understand the repercussions that supply and demand would have on the actual prices of those illegal firearms.
The premise of your argument is that "law-abiding" citizens would be able to defend themselves. However, your own statistics show that even in areas where those "law-abiding" citizens are allowed to own firearms, the crime rates do not change.
So why would you want to actually own a gun for if it's useless in the fight against crime?
Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens.
Law-abiding citizens do not own firearms to fight crime; they own firearms legally for the purposes of sporting, recreation, hunting, self-defense, and home-defense.
On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: I'm not arguing with you on the subject of firearm availability to criminals - even though a 10 yrs old would understand the repercussions that supply and demand would have on the actual prices of those illegal firearms.
Firearms are significantly cheaper to obtain illegally. Some criminologists did some research with convicted criminals, and found that the same weapon available on the black market was maybe a fifth of the cost of the same weapon on the legal market.
On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: The premise of your argument is that "law-abiding" citizens would be able to defend themselves. However, your own statistics show that even in areas where those "law-abiding" citizens are allowed to own firearms, the crime rates do not change.
Exactly. Crime still exists, thus the need to defend oneself against violent crimes, including, but not limited to, rape, murder, and robbery, still exists.
On December 08 2007 12:56 qgart wrote: So why would you want to actually own a gun for if it's useless in the fight against crime?
Private citizens are not responsible for the enforcement of the laws. Why do you have this asinine belief that law-abiding citizens are the ones fighting crime?
In the Netherlands strong gunrestrictions are working, homocidefigures are low. This could be caused by other factors. Thats what makes statistics about a complex subject like crime murky and makes it hard to make general statements like guncontrol leads to less crimes and murders or not. If everybody without a criminal record in the Netherlands was allowed to own a gun I would feel less save. Somebody in shock from an accident could draw a gun. A drunk person could start shooting. I would worry me. Criminals could get a gun by stealing a legal gun. Bigger legalmarket---> Bigger illegal market
The states where there are restrictions could still get flooded with guns by people buying them across state.
Quick summary: The US has higher crimes rates than comparable countries, but with or without guns, the US still has the highest crime rates.
Conclusion: There's no statistically-significant correlation between gun laws, lax or strict, and crime rates. Also, stricter gun laws make no statistically-significant difference, hence why gun control is a false ideal.
Are people actually saying that restricting guns significantly lowers the amount of crimes (I haven't read through the thread yet)?
While there are a lot of crimes that could not happen without the gun laws that we have today, the shooting of this thread being a prime example, unless these crimes are a high percentage of the total crimes, gun laws do not effect the crime rate. And I think most anti-gun people believe this. But that still leaves the fact that if the same amount of violent crimes occurs with, or without guns, the ones with guns will result in more damage. The topic of this thread is an example of this as well. If these psychos did not have guns they simply would not be able to go on these rampages.
Those in favor of gun control who have not done their homework firmly believe that gun control has a positive effect on crime rates.
Apparently they know more about criminal behavior than criminologists do, as they keep repeatedly affirming their belief that criminals actually do not break the law when it comes to acquisition of firearms, and that gun control will actually do something.
The gun control laws already in place in various parts of the country have had little to no effect on crime rates.
As I said, I think that is probably correct. But it is hard to imagine that it would not have a positive effect on the outcome of the crime. Guns give the criminal more power. It's obvious fights with guns result in more deaths than other fights.
You do not comprehend your own thoughts every well.
Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case.
I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate.
On December 08 2007 12:59 Mayson wrote: You don't comprehend English very well.
Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens.
On December 08 2007 12:59 Mayson wrote: Firearms are significantly cheaper to obtain illegally. Some criminologists did some research with convicted criminals, and found that the same weapon available on the black market was maybe a fifth of the cost of the same weapon on the legal market.
It is certainly very convenient for you to forget mentioning where those researches took place. Illegal firearms may cost less than legal firearms in a country where firearms are legal. It is another story if you want to get an illegal firearms in a country where firearms are prohibited altogether.
If you thought that smuggling 1kg of cocaine was hard, try smuggling 1kg worth of firearms through the border. And do I need to mention that doing the later does not pay off nearly as much as doing the former?
On December 08 2007 13:43 Mayson wrote: Actually it's not convenient at all, considering I'm writing an editorial on the flaws of gun control.
Servolisk, don't bother posting unless you intend to cite a (reputable and unbiased) source.
qgart, I am in no position to pass judgment on the ease of committing crimes, and presumably, neither are you.
Does it take a criminal to know how crimes are committed? Then I guess we should all be very afraid of cops.
It is a simple matter of logic:
If you want to smuggle firearms into a country where all firearms are illegal and sell it cheap, then you would need to smuggle a LOT of it for your business to pay off. Or, you can smuggle a small quantity and put a high price tag on it.
On December 08 2007 13:46 Servolisk wrote: Hm, I don't care enough about this argument to actually source myself, so I think I'll not bother posting to you.
You cared enough to tell me the unbiased facts and statistics I've found are wrong without posting any kind of legitimate source.
Funny; the moment someone challenges your logic, you suddenly "don't care enough" and back down.
On December 08 2007 13:43 Mayson wrote: Actually it's not convenient at all, considering I'm writing an editorial on the flaws of gun control.
Servolisk, don't bother posting unless you intend to cite a (reputable and unbiased) source.
qgart, I am in no position to pass judgment on the ease of committing crimes, and presumably, neither are you.
Does it take a criminal to know how crimes are committed? Then I guess we should all be very afraid of cops.
It is a simple matter of logic:
If you want to smuggle firearms into a country where all firearms are illegal and sell it cheap, then you would need to smuggle a LOT of it for your business to pay off. Or, you can smuggle a small quantity and put a high price tag on it.
That's obvious.
Before you were talking about how easy or difficult is it to smuggle illegal items into a given area.
On December 08 2007 13:43 Mayson wrote: Actually it's not convenient at all, considering I'm writing an editorial on the flaws of gun control.
Servolisk, don't bother posting unless you intend to cite a (reputable and unbiased) source.
qgart, I am in no position to pass judgment on the ease of committing crimes, and presumably, neither are you.
Does it take a criminal to know how crimes are committed? Then I guess we should all be very afraid of cops.
It is a simple matter of logic:
If you want to smuggle firearms into a country where all firearms are illegal and sell it cheap, then you would need to smuggle a LOT of it for your business to pay off. Or, you can smuggle a small quantity and put a high price tag on it.
That's obvious.
Before you were talking about how easy or difficult is it to smuggle illegal items into a given area.
Ever heard of the "risk factor" when you are making an investment? What is easier, smuggling a lot or smuggling very little? How does each case affect the price of an illegal firearm? No need to be an economics major to see that illegal firearms would cost more in a country where firearms are outlawed.
More importantly, I am waiting for your answer to my previous previous comment.
On December 08 2007 13:46 Servolisk wrote: Hm, I don't care enough about this argument to actually source myself, so I think I'll not bother posting to you.
You cared enough to tell me the unbiased facts and statistics I've found are wrong without posting any kind of legitimate source.
Funny; the moment someone challenges your logic, you suddenly "don't care enough" and back down.
Did you see what I responded to when I said that?
Crime rates do not change in a statistically-significant way as a result of gun control laws. Therefore, gun control laws serve no purpose other than to restrict the means of self-defense of law-abiding citizens.
This has a source, other than you?
You did not challenge any logic, you asked me to show you a source. I don't have one on hand, and I don't care to find one.
Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms.
Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals.
Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I've cited sources previously.
To the above, I objected:
Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case.
I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate.
Also, if making firearms illegal in the entire country has a chance of increasing the prices of illegal firearms, then would it not a good thing to try? If nothing else, criminals will have to spend less money on drugs (which will probably make them less subject to violent behaviors). And until you provide me with reliable sources that illegal firearms would cost less in a country where firearms are outlawed, logic commands me to believe the opposite.
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms.
Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals.
Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
I've cited sources previously.
In a society where every single weapon either has to be smuggled into the country or stolen from the army/cops its a lot harder for a "criminal" to acquire a gun than in a society where you can find one in every other house. How can you deny this? If there are fewer gun then there are fewer people with guns.
I know you dont like looking at europe but from now on in this thread could you stop saying that gun control doesnt work. Your argument was that gun control didnt work in the US remember? I dont think the higher level of crime in the US is only due to no gun control. I would however like to hear why you think the US has so much crime and why you think that amount of crime is something inherent to the US society/culture and something that cant be changed.
I like your black and white view on criminals. Remember that all "criminals" are "law-abiding citizen" until they commit their first crime and remember that anyone who downloads music online or tries pot is a "criminal". Many people who are "criminal" in their youth turn out just fine when they grow older etc.
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms.
Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals.
Which gun control laws do you refer to, ones in other countries, proposed gun control laws, or...?
Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Did any of your sources say how many crimes involving guns were purchased legally/illegally?
In the short term, what you say is probably somewhat accurate. Some criminals will have guns and regular citizens will not, but someone tell me why in the long term guns wouldn't eventually heavily decrease in the hands of criminals?
Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.
Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.
The problem with regards to illegal acquisition is this:
Guns are available two ways: The first is legally. Law-abiding citizens fill out the proper paperwork at their local law enforcement station, complete the necessary class time, class work, and range time under the direction of an NRA-certified instructor. The laws vary from state to state in the US, so that's a general overview of typical, and reasonable laws in the US.
The second way is illegally. Criminals trade guns with one another, they steal them from people who own them legally or illegally to begin with, and so on.
Criminal behavior is perpetual. The shooter in Omaha had a criminal history, including the theft of the rifle used in said shooting. By definition, criminal behavior operates outside of, and in defiance of, the laws in place.
There are already gun laws banning and restricted various things, whether it be the legal acquisition of handguns (Washington, D.C.) or the acquisition of fully-automatic weapons and weapon suppressors (Massachusetts).
Given this fact--and it is a fact, mind you--criminal behavior, and the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be drastically impacted by gun laws.
So, gun control could become law, and law-abiding citizens will directly lose the means with which to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, while criminals will not be affected, as, as has been shown through years of criminology, criminals break the law. That's why they're criminals--they break the law.
Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.
Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.
Great source!
I am supposed to be surprised that corruption (read: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN DEFIANCE OF THE LAW) feeds criminal behavior?
This is why I fully-support federal, state, county, and local law enforcement having the power to directly enforce firearms laws, and that firearms laws be enforced in much more severe ways.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
On December 08 2007 14:05 Mayson wrote: Gun control: restricting legal ownership of firearms with the intent of impacting the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms.
Gun control laws currently in place do not affect the illegal distribution, allocation, and acquisition of firearms, as shown by the fact that said gun controls laws currently in place are broken on a daily basis by criminals.
Which gun control laws do you refer to, ones in other countries, proposed gun control laws, or...?
Therefore, the only tangible, quantifiable effect of gun control laws is the restriction of legal sale, ownership, and operation of legally-owned firearms, which this reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Did any of your sources say how many crimes involving guns were purchased legally/illegally?
In the short term, what you say is probably somewhat accurate. Some criminals will have guns and regular citizens will not, but someone tell me why in the long term guns wouldn't eventually heavily decrease in the hands of criminals?
No, what I've said is completely accurate.
Divide the population of the US into two groups:
Citizens: people who do not engage in criminal activity or behavior Criminals: people who engage in criminal activity or behavior
Apply gun laws to each group:
Citizens: do not break the law, do not have the means to defend themselves Criminals: already defined as not following the laws, so they break the laws and use their means of violence
A gun is a different tool based on who's hands it's in.
Given this fact--and it is a fact, mind you--criminal behavior, and the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be drastically impacted by gun laws.
So, gun control could become law, and law-abiding citizens will directly lose the means with which to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, while criminals will not be affected, as, as has been shown through years of criminology, criminals break the law. That's why they're criminals--they break the law.
I don't doubt they would still try to break the law, but if 85-90% of criminal gun sources are a result of lax gun control laws, as the source indicates, why would gun control not be able to severely lessen illegal acquisition?
Criminals who buy them illegally through a friend will no longer be able to do so if their friend cannot buy the gun themselves. There would be no corrupt gun dealers if there were no legal gun dealing, etc.
1. There are already many firearms in the hands of criminals, and available on the black market, and through corrupt FFLs, as you kindly pointed out to me. (Thanks again--that's a great source.)
2. Banning the legal sale of firearms completely would stop the illegal flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals. It also stops the legal flow of firearms to law-abiding citizens, who have never been the problem in the first place.
What happens as a result of these two things is this: a hypothetical ban on guns deprives the law-abiding, those characterized by not being the problem in this issue, of the right to self-preservation and the protection of one's property, while the criminals are still armed.
A disarmed society of citizens against armed criminals is a win-win for the criminals.
As far as I'm concerned, gun control directly aids and abets criminals.
So if not gun control, then what? How about instead of making more laws until we find the right one, we allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce laws? Why doesn't the ATF begin doing random checks on FFLs themselves?
Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
You don't seem to understand that guns are not the only way you can defend against criminals.
On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote: Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results.
Replace "cocaine" by "firearms" and you have exactly what every pro gun-control person wants.
On December 08 2007 15:18 Mayson wrote: That's a prime example of the failed logic.
1. There are already many firearms in the hands of criminals, and available on the black market, and through corrupt FFLs, as you kindly pointed out to me. (Thanks again--that's a great source.)
2. Banning the legal sale of firearms completely would stop the illegal flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals. It also stops the legal flow of firearms to law-abiding citizens, who have never been the problem in the first place.
What happens as a result of these two things is this: a hypothetical ban on guns deprives the law-abiding, those characterized by not being the problem in this issue, of the right to self-preservation and the protection of one's property, while the criminals are still armed.
You have not explained why stopping the major source of illegal gun activity would not SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the amount of guns in the hands of criminals.
Guns already in the hands of criminals would not be expected to provide the same access of guns to criminals.
And if these criminals do commit crimes with their guns, they will be caught, and over time the availability of guns to criminals will be even further lessened, without a significant way of replenishing dealers.
So if not gun control, then what? How about instead of making more laws until we find the right one, we allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce laws? Why doesn't the ATF begin doing random checks on FFLs themselves?
Making cocaine illegal does not stop the flow of cocaine to the streets of the US. Enforcing the law that makes cocaine illegal produces results.
Cut off the head, the body dies.
I'm sure all anti-gun people here would be fine with that, if not that alone.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
Mayson you are looking at this issue in a very black and white point of view.
There are no criminals and law-abiding citizens.
There are citizens and then there are deviants from society.
You see people are not born criminals, realize that most people are law-abiding citizens. This kid was a law-abiding citizen as far as I know, he committed no crimes before this shooting. So you might want to reconsider your thinking. Why not have police officers in the mall like we have here in New York. If something happens you don't rely on some random douche bag to try to play superman and save us all. There are cops for that. Might as well cut down on officers and increase legal purchasing of guns.
We are sadly, frightened little animals. It takes a trained person to shoot someone without hesitating. It takes a trained person to not shoot the wrong person ( assuming there are more than 2 people holding guns). It also takes a trained person to save lives instead of killing more in the process.
You probably think that this is the responsibility of the individual, and I agree with you. It just seems that you haven't really come up with any sort of solution besides (give guns to more people and let god sort them out)
If you want mandatory military service for 1-2 years, yeah I agree with you. It would be pretty cool to have trained men and women who can defend themselves. It works for many countries with mandatory military service (they teach you how to control yourself and how to act in violent situations) and so far nobody complains of loose government-trained-killers roaming the streets.
People should realize that it's not just being a contrarian to a failed policy ( brady campaign) but you also have to come up with a solution as well.
I want to reduce the flow of firearms to criminals. I want to reduce the amount of crime committed--period--firearms involved or otherwise.
However, I will never support any legislation that infringes upon my right to self-preservation.
For example: a complete ban on the sale of firearms would:
- not allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, or engage in sporting and recreational purposes - not affect criminals, as criminals, by definition, act outside of, and in defiance of the laws
So a ban on guns would simply disarm the law-abiding citizens, leaving them open for criminals to do whatever.
Many of the laws proposed by gun control activists are dual-edged swords; they have a dual agenda:
1. Reduce crime 2. Reduce firearms availability to anyone at all
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote: - not affect criminals
Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
Let me be simple:
BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS
BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
Yeah and omit the obvious
BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO
You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
Let me be simple:
BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS
BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
Yeah and omit the obvious
BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO
You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns.
Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns.
Prohibition = failed War on Drugs = failed War on Guns = most likely to fail
And since you obviously suffer from selective hearing problems let me, for the 19th time, respond to your law-abiding citizens needing to defend themselves stuff:
Do you agree that if a "law-abiding" citizens successfully defends against a violent crime, then he/she would not figure among the "murdered" "raped" or "robbed" when the stats are compiled? If so, the violent crime rates should be much lower in areas where ppl are allowed to carry firearms. Your own stats showed that this was not the case.
I didn't say that citizens who own guns have to fight crime. However, if you successfully defend yourself against a criminal, can we say that you have effectively contributed in the decrease of crime rate in the area you live? But then again, you showed yourself that letting ppl own guns does not decrease crime rate.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. I find myself making similar arguments on immigration policy. It seems when current laws aren't enforced, there is a component of society which seeks to patch things up by creating more laws, regardless the fact that the problem is enforcement, not codification. I'm not trying to aligns Mayson's views to mine in regards to immigration; the rationale is similar, though.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
Let me be simple:
BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS
BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
Yeah and omit the obvious
BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO
You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns.
But not all criminals would be able to, and there would be a lot less criminals armed with guns.
Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns.
Prohibition = failed War on Drugs = failed War on Guns = most likely to fail
Most of the smuggling of guns apparently stems from legal sources within the US.
Once again, laws do not prevent criminal behavior.
Actually, a great deal of them do...
The enforcement of laws prevents criminal behavior. Laws are words on a page.
Edit: "Federal laws do make it illegal for felons and minors to purchase guns. However, a 1996 national study showed that only 7 percent of people recently arrested said they had no access to guns. More than a third said they could get one in less than a week. According to a 1993 national study, 59 percent of sixth through twelfth graders said they knew where to get a gun if they wanted one, and two thirds of these said they could get one within 24 hours."
Of course. Criminals have family members and friends who are not necessarily criminals themselves and who legally own guns. How easy is it for a criminal to go "visit" his/her "law-abiding" uncle and steal his gun without the later noticing it? If you decrease the availability to guns, those stats you cited would go down dramatically.
If you decrease the availability to guns, you disarm the law-abiding.
How fucking difficult is this to understand? I've told you this 19 fucking times, and you just don't fucking get it.
Let me be simple:
BAN OF GUNS = NO DEFENSE FOR CITIZENS
BAN OF GUNS = NO RESISTANCE TO CRIMINALS
Yeah and omit the obvious
BAN OF GUNS = CRIMINALS HAVE MUCH LESS GUNS TOO
You don't seem to understand that if you want changes, you need to do something about it. Status quo will get you nowhere.
You're wrong buddy, people who want to hurt you and eat your babies will always find ways to get illegal guns.
Your thinking could work if you banned every single gun except those possessed by law enforcing agents. So that is basically stopping smuggling of all guns.
Prohibition = failed War on Drugs = failed War on Guns = most likely to fail
War on Drugs failed because you can easily smuggle them through the air and even more easily on the ground.
Smuggling guns through the air... forget about it.
Smuggling guns with trucks... plausible, but then again, you'd have to smuggle a LOT of them in order for your business to become lucrative.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws.
And ignoring that a large portion of breaking the law is enabled by people who follow the law. In this case the criminals are largely dependent on the supply intended for legal use.
On December 08 2007 15:59 Mayson wrote: Typical Canadian.
You, favoring gun control, support:
- rape - murder - robbery - assault
to go unchecked. You're a traitor to the human race.
Typical pro-gun supporter. Your logic fails, so you start attacking me personally.
Last time I checked, violent crime rate in Canada is lower than in the US. So the "typical Canadian" would in fact go against everything you accused me of being.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. I find myself making similar arguments on immigration policy. It seems when current laws aren't enforced, there is a component of society which seeks to patch things up by creating more laws, regardless the fact that the problem is enforcement, not codification. I'm not trying to aligns Mayson's views to mine in regards to immigration; the rationale is similar, though.
For the record, I do agree with you.
It's really a shame people don't understand simple logic.
Take anything. Let's take teddy bears.
Flood the market with teddy bears. Everyone buys them; lots of people own them, including criminals. Now, ban them. Citizens don't want to give them up, but they don't want to become a criminal, so they give in. The criminals don't care, haven't cared, and don't give them up.
Now the only people with teddy bears are the criminals.
Cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc., are all illegal. Does the status of something being illegal make any difference? No. Why? Something must be enforced for it to have an impact.
Oh, and I admit I was wrong in one area. Banning guns does help:
On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote: - not affect criminals
Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected.
Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you.
I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws.
The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be?
What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals?
Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws.
And ignoring that a large portion of breaking the law is enabled by people who follow the law. In this case the criminals are largely dependent on the supply intended for legal use.
If I extrapolate from your logic, I can claim that alcohol prohibition should have been a successful venture: no domestic dealers equals no law-abiding citizens to help with the supply, right...?
Economic forces are stronger than bureaucratic impositions. If the market exists, the suppliers will always be present.
On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote: - not affect criminals
Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected.
Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you.
I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws.
The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be?
What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals?
Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that.
It's quite simple, and I already gave some examples.
If a large chunk of these criminals rely on corrupt dealers, they won't be able to if there are ZERO dealers due to guns being completely illegal.
The illegal activity now is highly dependent on the guns intended for legal use.
On December 08 2007 15:44 Mayson wrote: - not affect criminals
Saying that criminals will ignore gun laws and get guns from other criminals that already have guns prior to a gun ban does not at all persuade me, and apparently others, to believe you that criminals will not be affected.
Well, then maybe the fact that there are gun laws being broken on a daily basis will convince you.
I make no distinction between gun laws now and proposed gun laws.
The laws we have aren't being followed. What makes you think future laws will be?
What makes you think banning guns, disarming citizens, will stop criminals?
Criminals don't follow laws. Making more laws (that they aren't going to follow anyway) won't change that.
It's quite simple, and I already gave some examples.
If a large chunk of these criminals rely on corrupt dealers, they won't be able to if there are ZERO dealers due to guns being completely illegal.
The illegal activity now is highly dependent on the guns intended for legal use.
We both agree that FFLs selling to criminals is criminal activity, and I bet we'd both agree that the laws should be enforced.
But instead of enforcing the laws, you'd much rather make a completely new law that's a blanket solution.
Instead of attacking the source of the problem, which is the flow of firearms to criminals, you'd rather just ban everything.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws.
And ignoring that a large portion of breaking the law is enabled by people who follow the law. In this case the criminals are largely dependent on the supply intended for legal use.
If I extrapolate from your logic, I can claim that alcohol prohibition should have been a successful venture: no domestic dealers equals no law-abiding citizens to help with the supply, right...?
Economic forces are stronger than bureaucratic impositions. If the market exists, the suppliers will always be present.
People could make their own alcohol a lot easier than they would be able to make their own guns (and without being noticed).
Modern guns are not going to be as easy to supply as guns and alcohol, which do not require as much resources to produce, and are more difficult to traffic.
On December 08 2007 16:11 Mayson wrote: What analogy? You mean the one that's indisputable because it's correct?
Do you honestly not understand that criminals don't follow the laws? Do you understand what makes someone a criminal?
Do you even know what a fucking law is? Do you understand a law, by itself, does nothing at all? Why do you think we have law enforcement?
Everyone understands that, for the love of <insert deity of choice>.
You have said that it would affect the people who follow laws. It is those people, rather than the law, that will affect the criminals, since in this particular case they rely on them for 85-90% of gun supply.
That's funny--for 22 pages I've been using logic, statistically-significant research findings from people with the resources to do controlled evaluations, and those statements were ignored.
The moment I point out the lack of intelligence in your posts, I'm a "troll."
On December 08 2007 16:20 Mayson wrote: That's funny--for 22 pages I've been using logic, statistically-significant research findings from people with the resources to do controlled evaluations, and those statements were ignored.
The moment I point out the lack of intelligence in your posts, I'm a "troll."
How convenient.
For the record, you never had any credibility.
Right. It's quite obvious you are pretending not to see the glaring weakness others have brought up around 10 times now. Good night.
On December 08 2007 16:11 Mayson wrote: What analogy? You mean the one that's indisputable because it's correct?
Do you honestly not understand that criminals don't follow the laws? Do you understand what makes someone a criminal?
Do you even know what a fucking law is? Do you understand a law, by itself, does nothing at all? Why do you think we have law enforcement?
Everyone understands that, for the love of <insert deity of choice>.
You have said that it would affect the people who follow laws. It is those people, rather than the law, that will affect the criminals, since in this particular case they rely on them for 85-90% of gun supply.
I see the point you're making. If nobody ever had any guns, criminals couldn't steal them from you. If FFLs didn't exist, the minority of whom are corrupt couldn't sell them to criminals.
Then again, how am I supposed to protect myself? If nobody has any guns to be stolen, I can't defend myself when my life is threatened by those who find ways around the laws.My magical "gun-free zone" aura will protect me.
The difference between you and me is just that you're willing to lie down, curl up into a fetal position, and give up your rights. I'm not a coward. I refuse to accept that in order to affect crime, I have to give up my rights as a human being, and as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.
That's the most backwards logic with regards to fighting crime that I've ever heard.
Why not enforce the laws instead of making new ones targeting those who perpetually do not follow them in the first place?
Production of booze is alot simpler than production of firearms there is no hidden factory making guns for criminals. It wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get guns if there wasn't a big market for legal guns. The legal market is where the bulk of the illegal guns is comming from. Simple logicand simple economics. Except for extreme cases like the AK47. I can't imagine how that got in the USA.
mayson there's no way in hell i trust the general population with guns.
guns come in handy when some guys trying to rape you, yes, they come in handy for overthrowing a fascist government, yes
but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something.
in order to support the general population packing heat there would have to be a way to verify who's going to use his weapon responsibly. and that's impossible to do, just think about how many police officers whip out their pistols too fast already, and they have professional training and are supposedly given background checks.
if the police are trigger happy just imagine the mentaility behind your average citizen, there's no way in hell i trust the average citizen having guns.
so again, yeah it's nice to be able to defend yourself in the direst of situations, on the other hand it isn't nice when the general population are all a bunch of armed retarded baboons waving pistols at each other.
i think a compromise is to let a household have 1 small gun per household (conditional upon having a clean background and record) for self defense against intruders. taking that weapon outside the home should be illegal though.
All you have to know is over population is going to ruin the world and our current population will increase by 2/3 by 2050 so dead people all good WAR SLOVES ALL THINGS haha seriously look it up in history it does and it solves overpopulation to STOP procreating haha i post this in confidence that it will be ignored like every other post made on this thread
On December 08 2007 16:26 IzzyCraft wrote: All you have to know is over population is going to ruin the world and our current population will increase by 2/3 by 2050 so dead people all good WAR SLOVES ALL THINGS haha seriously look it up in history it does and it solves overpopulation to STOP procreating haha i post this in confidence that it will be ignored like every other post made on this thread
^_^
Yeah, the world is overpopulated...big problem...wrong thread. ;o
On December 08 2007 16:27 Servolisk wrote: Mayson is a good case for banning guns entirely. He apparently owns guns. *I* wouldn't feel comfortable around him.
I don't own any guns. Whether or not you feel safe around someone who owns guns is not the point. As a law-abiding citizen, I pose no threat to you--guns or not.
If I was a criminal, things would be different. But I'm not.
Edit: I bet the students at Virginia Tech felt really safe right up until they were being shot at.
Didn't Cho get the memo? It's a gun-free zone at VT. Maybe next time the magical gun-free zones will protect people.
On December 08 2007 16:25 a-game wrote: mayson there's no way in hell i trust the general population with guns.
guns come in handy when some guys trying to rape you, yes, they come in handy for overthrowing a fascist government, yes
but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something.
in order to support the general population packing heat there would have to be a way to verify who's going to use his weapon responsibly. and that's impossible to do, just think about how many police officers whip out their pistols too fast already, and they have professional training and are supposedly given background checks.
if the police are trigger happy just imagine the mentaility behind your average citizen, there's no way in hell i trust the average citizen having guns.
so again, yeah it's nice to be able to defend yourself in the direst of situations, on the other hand it isn't nice when the general population are all a bunch of armed retarded baboons waving pistols at each other.
i think a compromise is to let a household have 1 small gun per household (conditional upon having a clean background and record) for self defense against intruders. taking that weapon outside the home should be illegal though.
I agree with much of what you're saying.
Even some law-abiding citizens are not responsible enough to own a firearm safely. I don't agree with every single person in a given population owning a firearm; I do support those that have proven their proficiency, whether it be through a clean record or passing classes, background checks, etc., to be allowed to own firearms.
Edit: You will benefit from some research into the patterns of behavior of those who possess concealed weapon carry licenses. You will find that:
- CCW permit holders have a much lower incidence of committing crimes than criminals do - The number of revoked permits per year in any given country is relatively low compared to the number of issued permits
While I do admit some people legally obtain a firearm, and then suddenly turn into dumbasses, the overwhelmingly large majority of people who legally own firearms do not contribute to criminal behavior.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to be imperfect, is it not? Accidents will happen. Mistakes will happen.
Banning guns to avoid said accidents and mistakes would have dire side-effects, many of which have been covered repeatedly.
On December 08 2007 16:25 a-game wrote: but at the same token, the general population is incredibly retarded. i don't want some ignorant redneck waving a pistol on my face because i stole his parking spot or something.
Why is it that "rednecks" are always mentioned when the author requires reference to an absolute evil? It's like, Godwin's law, but with respect to US-population/hicks rather than sovereignties/nazis.
Contrary to what you've said, "general population" behaves in a predictable manner. You drive 65mph within several feet of "general population" everyday. Any one of those random strangers could decide to end your life then and there. But we trust other members of society will behave predictably. We live life on that assumption. In that light, your statement seems prejudiced and paranoid.
On December 08 2007 16:57 BroOd wrote: Yeah, the idea of watching you hump something with nothing but your socks and gun holster on is just so damned appealing.
I've found that much of what those in favor of gun control is said often sounds prejudiced, condescending, and suggestive that the general population as a whole cannot be trusted with any level of responsibility, thus placing the blame on the citizens, instead of on the criminals--those perpetuating the crimes against society that has led gun control to exist in the first place.
The design of gun control laws is inherently flawed. Current gun control laws in place across the US that are intended to reduce crime involving firearms has been relatively ineffective, as criminals operate in spite of the laws. Gun control would simply make more laws, which, as evidence clearly shows, would be ineffective.
The problem with firearms is that criminals still have access to them. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but the proposed legislature coming from anti-gun campaigns would be ineffective. The current gun control laws are ineffective; more gun control laws will not be any different.
The sources of firearms going to criminals are known. They include, but are not limited to, FFLs breaking the law by selling to criminals, theft from citizens, and also by "borrowing" them from friends, family, and other criminals.
Gun control, instead of attacking these sources with the goal of upholding the law, attacks guns as a whole. Are guns as a whole the problem? Absolutely not; there are no statistically-significant reports that demonstrate that the mere presence of a firearm is a problem. The problem is when a firearm is misused for illegal purposes.
Instead of attempting to limit citizens from legally purchasing a firearm, the time and money should be spent enabling federal, state, and local law enforcement to enforce firearms laws in a better way. For example, the ATF could randomly do spot checks on those currently holding FFLs. If they could weed out the "rotten apples," the ATF would effectively uphold the law, and reduce the flow of firearms intended for the legal market to criminals.
My point is that currently-proposed gun control legislation would be ineffective, as have previous forms of gun control legislation. Instead of attacking firearms, attack the source of the problem: the flow of firearms to criminals.
It will be difficult to directly affect the black market by allowing law enforcement to uphold firearms laws, but reducing the availability of firearms intended for the legal market to criminals while preserving a citizen's right to self-preservation, self-defense, and home-defense is a much better, safer, and effective form of legislature.
That's exactly why the problem isn't, never was, and never will be firearms. The problem is still the behavior of an individual, not the tool used to commit criminal behavior.
On December 08 2007 17:48 Mayson wrote: That's exactly why the problem isn't, never was, and never will be firearms. The problem is still the behavior of an individual, not the tool used to commit criminal behavior.
Stop your trolling. The availability of weapons prompted this shooting. End of story.
As much as I disagree with Mayson, it's pretty hypocritical to call him a troll and respond with 1 sentence, when he's put up page after page of reasonable, supported argument.
On December 08 2007 17:48 Mayson wrote: That's exactly why the problem isn't, never was, and never will be firearms. The problem is still the behavior of an individual, not the tool used to commit criminal behavior.
Stop your trolling. The availability of weapons prompted this shooting. End of story.
If the availability of firearms "prompted" the shooting, as you put it, then, but that logic, we'd all be mass murderers.
Why do you ignore the behavior of the individual responsible for said shooting, only to claim it's due to some other factor?
On December 08 2007 18:05 Jibba wrote: As much as I disagree with Mayson, it's pretty hypocritical to call him a troll and respond with 1 sentence, when he's put up page after page of reasonable, supported argument.
Mayson if you dont want to be called a troll you could try not insulting peoples logic when we all know its just a difference of perspective and opinion. You value your right to bare arms higher than solving the problems you admit exist with unresposible "legal" owners and criminals. You say that the problem is the amount guns that the "criminals" have. I agree that that is one of the bigger problems but how can you ever see a decrease in "criminal" arms happening if the legal market is flooded with guns? If you managed to remove half of the illegal guns they would instantly be replaced since there is a legal market.
No one is saying an outright ban on guns in the US would work. Like someone said, a good transition phase might be allowing one hard-to-conceal rifle made for self defense per household that was illegal to bring outside the household. When you are walking towards a long term goal then short term sacrifices should be expected. If you cant even take one step then im not supriced people get frustrated when they argue with you.
I wouldnt call you a troll though, your worldview is just very different from mine and you have attitude.
That's funny, and hypocritical of you. I went 18 pages before finally giving in and returning an insult. For the duration of those 18 pages, I was constantly bombarded with insults. Why am I held to a different standard of posting?
Most people don't understand the flow of firearms with regards to both legal and illegal buyers and sellers.
Criminals get firearms from: - Legally-licensed, but corrupt FFLs - Straw purchases - Theft - Illegal "street vendors"
How does gun control directly attack any of these three sources of firearms for criminals? It doesn't. Gun control aims to pass laws against those who, by definition, do not follow laws.
Instead of implementing gun control so that the flow of firearms intended for the legal market isn't diverted to the illegal markets, allow federal, state, and local law enforcement to actively investigate and enforce the reasonable gun laws already in place.
For example, the ATF should actively and aggressively investigate any report of stolen or missing firearms from FFLs. Weeding out the "rotten apples" amongst FFLs would show a reduced quantity of firearms intended for legal sale from ending up in the possession of criminals.
Straw purchases are a big problem. Waiting periods were introduced to affect this, but there's no evidence that they work. Straw purchases is the way minors get alcohol. A minor has someone who can legally obtain alcohol buy it for them, and then immediately turn around and sell the alcohol to the minor. I think that there should be severe consequences for being convicted as a "straw purchaser." Aiding and abetting criminal activity, anyone?
Theft has always been a problem, and not just with firearms. I think increasing the severity of the punishment for the illegal possession of a firearm is appropriate.
It is a big problem that FFLs are sometime selling firearms illegally directly to firearms traffickers, but the solution is not to ban the sale of firearms completely. The solution is to stop the illegal sale of firearms between FFLs and firearms traffickers. This would severely limit the portion of firearms intended for the legal market to the illegal market.
Edit: To imagine this visually, make a flow chart:
Flow Chart of Firearms 1. Manufacturer 2. FFLs 3a. Law-abiding citizens -Legal sale from FFLs - Legal resale from other law-abiding citizen 3b. Criminals - Illegal transaction from FFLs - Straw purchase (legal sale to purchaser from FFLs, illegal resale) - Theft (from law-abiding citizens, FFLs, or other criminals) - Illegal transaction with street vendor
Gun control would stop the flow of firearms before they reach the FFLs, and as a result, law-abiding citizens would be deprived of the means with which to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property, as allowed by applicable law. Sane, logical laws, and law enforcement would stop the flow of firearms illegally at "3b," keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to the greatest extent of the law and law enforcement manpower, while not depriving law-abiding citizens of their right to self-preservation.
On December 08 2007 19:04 Mayson wrote: That's funny, and hypocritical of you. I went 18 pages before finally giving in and returning an insult. For the duration of those 18 pages, I was constantly bombarded with insults. Why am I held to a different standard of posting?
I might be wrong. Im not going to go back and check who started. Maybe you were just pushed into a corner, I guess it is understandable in that case. I didnt read everthing my peers wrote and I have never insulted anyone on these forums that I can remember. Maybe I took your insult personaly when it wasnt aimed at me...
Mayson USA's 'murder per capita' rate is about 70%-95% higher than pretty much every west european country. And your 'murder by gun' is a couple of hundred percent higher as well.
The problem is in my opinion the guns combined with the united states system, which sort of doesnt give a shit if there is a large lower class population, from which a large percentage of crime stems from.
If you solve the lower class problems you could most likely start to gradually add harsher and harsher gun laws without increasing amount of crime.
In the ideal world, guns wouldn't exist. But that's not the real world... it's definitely not the USA. Here, I'd rather run the risk that some crazy teenager will kill me in a mall because he's coming off anti-depressants, or that some pissed off car jacker shoots me because he doesn't like my shirt, before I'd give up the ability to own a gun.
That's because the chances that I meet up with a criminal (and criminals are 100x more prepared to fuck you up than any of you are to fuck them up, at least 99.99% of you) are far higher than the chances that I get randomly shot by a teenager, or randomly murdered for some stupid reason, because guns aren't outlawed.
In fact, my brother's house (where I'm staying right now, in Phoenix, AZ) has been broken into 3 times. He got a gun for that very reason, but not with the intention to kill anyone, just to have defense in case they tried to get in again while he was in a vulnerable position (he usually sleeps downstairs on the couch after work). Once he got caught off-guard (the second time), but luckily he was able to get out of the house before they met up inside.
While I'll gladly dream with the majority of you, I have to live in the real. And unless you can somehow screen stupid people from having children, I don't think a solution exists at this point.
sources? I know it's "per capita" but did it take into account USA is 7501384532482930 times bigger in area & population than any little Europe country?
btw only rich white people vote for Republic, I'm a poor Asian dude so Democrat ftw.
On December 08 2007 19:55 iloveHieu wrote: sources? I know it's "per capita" but did it take into account USA is 7501384532482930 times bigger in area & population than any little Europe country?
btw only rich white people vote for Republic, I'm a poor Asian dude so Democrat ftw.
per capita takes the populations size into account, its about percentages
and just search murders per capita on google, or whatever you want to know, gun murders per capita etc etc
On December 08 2007 19:55 iloveHieu wrote: sources? I know it's "per capita" but did it take into account USA is 7501384532482930 times bigger in area & population than any little Europe country?
btw only rich white people vote for Republic, I'm a poor Asian dude so Democrat ftw.
On December 08 2007 19:55 iloveHieu wrote: sources? I know it's "per capita" but did it take into account USA is 7501384532482930 times bigger in area & population than any little Europe country?
btw only rich white people vote for Republic, I'm a poor Asian dude so Democrat ftw.
This week I read from newspaper that, according to Harvard study the murder rates are higher in states were the gunlaws are 'easier'(dunno correct english word..TT). Weird isnt it ?
I'd vote Ron Paul if I were American. I don't like building a fence around the borders from an idealistic point of view but I like the concept that you solve your own problems and try to keep things simple and small. If I understand him correctly he'd give a lot more power to each state and let them do their own thing for the most part. I'd like to see that, it gives more power to each individual.
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. I find myself making similar arguments on immigration policy. It seems when current laws aren't enforced, there is a component of society which seeks to patch things up by creating more laws, regardless the fact that the problem is enforcement, not codification. I'm not trying to aligns Mayson's views to mine in regards to immigration; the rationale is similar, though.
For the record, I do agree with you.
It's really a shame people don't understand simple logic.
Take anything. Let's take teddy bears.
Flood the market with teddy bears. Everyone buys them; lots of people own them, including criminals. Now, ban them. Citizens don't want to give them up, but they don't want to become a criminal, so they give in. The criminals don't care, haven't cared, and don't give them up.
Now the only people with teddy bears are the criminals.
Cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc., are all illegal. Does the status of something being illegal make any difference? No. Why? Something must be enforced for it to have an impact.
Oh, and I admit I was wrong in one area. Banning guns does help:
Too bad it helps the fucking criminals.
If you ban guns, you restrict citizens themselves to protect themselves if criminals such as US Terrorists, or even the guy that started the shooting at the mall want to start a shooting, they just need a little money, or even drugs, to get what they want ILLEGALLY its not that hard -.- Obviously for citizens, if you want to be a good person, you dont want to buy guns Illegally just for your protection, might as well get caught by the law
I can't believe i actually read all 24 pages.. and I have come to this conclusion I'm in love with Mayson.
-----
Yes, vote Ron Paul! (do you support him Mayson??)
-----
I suppose I should contribute. In Singapore guns are illegal and generally the crime rate is pretty low. But on the flip side we are a police state without the kinds of freedoms that are enjoyed in the US.
I've served in the Singapore military for 2 and half years as well, so guns aren't foreign to me at all.
I do support Ron Paul, although there are certain things he's for that I completely disagree with. However, there's not one candidate running for the 2008 presidency I fully agree with.
The reason gun control works in Singapore is because of other factors. I guarantee you it would be difficult to prove that the lack of guns itself is the cause.
To prove causation, one must first have two very, very similar samples, both of which are representative of the overall population being tested.
Then, two conditions must be applied to it: one with guns, one without.
Then, once all confounding variables have been checked for, is there a difference? Typically, the answer is that it's intellectual fraud to compare two countries.
See, take any two countries, and compare them. You have different population sizes, different population distributions, such as a higher concentration of people in a given area, different crime rates, and different types of crime.
So now you can't directly compare them. This is why comparisons of the US to other countries is useless. There's no statistically-significant conclusions that can be drawn from the comparison, making correlation relationship and causation impossible to prove.
This is why many studies done within the US often try to compare two similar areas of the country, where many aspects of each given area is similar. Cramer did a study in 1990 that was published in "American Rifleman" that accurately explains this.
Summary: There is no correlation between gun control laws, lax or strict, and crime. This means that gun control laws themselves do little to change the behavior of those defined by not following the laws.
On December 08 2007 22:36 kroko wrote: This week I read from newspaper that, according to Harvard study the murder rates are higher in states were the gunlaws are 'easier'(dunno correct english word..TT). Weird isnt it ?
Any chance you could tell me the name of the study?
On December 08 2007 15:11 qgart wrote: So mayson, are you ever going to answer my post or keep on repeating you "law-abiding" crap over and over again?
Mayson is correct in emphasizing the legality. He is implying that gun control seeks to pass laws which are aimed at people who do not follow laws. I find myself making similar arguments on immigration policy. It seems when current laws aren't enforced, there is a component of society which seeks to patch things up by creating more laws, regardless the fact that the problem is enforcement, not codification. I'm not trying to aligns Mayson's views to mine in regards to immigration; the rationale is similar, though.
For the record, I do agree with you.
It's really a shame people don't understand simple logic.
Take anything. Let's take teddy bears.
Flood the market with teddy bears. Everyone buys them; lots of people own them, including criminals. Now, ban them. Citizens don't want to give them up, but they don't want to become a criminal, so they give in. The criminals don't care, haven't cared, and don't give them up.
Now the only people with teddy bears are the criminals.
Cocaine, heroine, marijuana, etc., are all illegal. Does the status of something being illegal make any difference? No. Why? Something must be enforced for it to have an impact.
Oh, and I admit I was wrong in one area. Banning guns does help:
Too bad it helps the fucking criminals.
If you ban guns, you restrict citizens themselves to protect themselves if criminals such as US Terrorists, or even the guy that started the shooting at the mall want to start a shooting, they just need a little money, or even drugs, to get what they want ILLEGALLY its not that hard -.- Obviously for citizens, if you want to be a good person, you dont want to buy guns Illegally just for your protection, might as well get caught by the law
Bingo.
Citizens aren't illegally buying guns for their own defense, typically. That's what criminals do.
so your basing stating that if guns are banned: Criminals and Authority are the only ones left with guns = weak citizins that will get abused by criminals and possibly totalitarian authority?
but if production of guns stop, at one point criminals (not organized crime, because they have enough ressources to import anything, but violence and shootings dont really affect regular citizens, except for the odd occasion of being at the wrong place at the wrong time) the ones that cause most civil incidents, poor and desperate, wont be able to get guns and will be to expensive to get them through the black market, which automatically will lead to less dead innocent people that were a victim in a crime. This obviously does not reduce crime, but neither does having more guns because crime was not invented by the people who inveted guns, CRIME NEEDS TO BE SOLVED AT A SOCIAL LEVEL. And having a totalitarian gouverment that might take advantage of this position on its own citizens is NOT CAUSED BY GUN CONTROL, it is caused by people being divided and weak and missinformend about who they elect and who they listen. So the whole things comes down to a very vague and social problem, were people need to fight the root of society and things need to be changed in many diferent fields, but ALLOWING guns for everyone will no reduce crime, at least not in the long term, until crime adapts itself some other way, wich it always does throught the first day man walked. So thats why your an idiot because you think guns can stop crime. A gun can stop A crime (maybe), but it cant stop CRIME itself.
ill rephrase this better after my exam, but hopefully you understood my point of view, even though i aint no specialist.
you just don't fight violence with more violence, how many times does that need to be said for people to understand that.
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
On December 09 2007 03:43 uiCk wrote: so your basing stating that if guns are banned: Criminals and Authority are the only ones left with guns = weak citizins that will get abused by criminals and possibly totalitarian authority?
but if production of guns stop, at one point criminals (not organized crime, because they have enough ressources to import anything, but violence and shootings dont really affect regular citizens, except for the odd occasion of being at the wrong place at the wrong time) the ones that cause most civil incidents, poor and desperate, wont be able to get guns and will be to expensive to get them through the black market, which automatically will lead to less dead innocent people that were a victim in a crime. This obviously does not reduce crime, but neither does having more guns because crime was not invented by the people who inveted guns, CRIME NEEDS TO BE SOLVED AT A SOCIAL LEVEL. And having a totalitarian gouverment that might take advantage of this position on its own citizens is NOT CAUSED BY GUN CONTROL, it is caused by people being divided and weak and missinformend about who they elect and who they listen. So the whole things comes down to a very vague and social problem, were people need to fight the root of society and things need to be changed in many diferent fields, but ALLOWING guns for everyone will no reduce crime, at least not in the long term, until crime adapts itself some other way, wich it always does throught the first day man walked. So thats why your an idiot because you think guns can stop crime. A gun can stop A crime (maybe), but it cant stop CRIME itself.
ill rephrase this better after my exam, but hopefully you understood my point of view, even though i aint no specialist.
you just don't fight violence with more violence, how many times does that need to be said for people to understand that.
So you advocate non-violent means of responding to violence?
Sorry, I don't roll over, play dead, and curl up into a fetal position when my life is on the line. I ensure my own safety by whatever means necessary. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I don't know why so many people in favor of gun control here can't read. There is no evidence that suggests a gun ban would work.
Criminals, by definition, do not follows the laws. There are already gun control laws in place. Criminals aren't following them. The laws need to be better enforced.
The production or sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens has never been an issue. The illegal sale of firearms from FFLs to criminals and arms traffickers is a problem, but instead of addressing the problem, gun control supporters would much rather just ban them outright.
That'll fix the problem, as I'm sure when you implement a gun ban, criminals would suddenly cease their predictable pattern of behavior, and immediately begin following the new laws.
The problem is not the legal firearms available to law-abiding citizens. The problem has never been that. The problem is that criminals are able to acquire firearms. Whether it be illegal sales directly from FFLs, straw purchases, theft from private and public entities, or illegal sales from arms traffickers (who typically get them from FFLs), criminals can, and will still get firearms.
Disarming the law-abiding leaves them open to attack. Instead of attempting to stop both legal and illegal sale of firearms by attacking the FFLs, attacking the illegal sale of firearms directly is the solution.
Please note that FFLs misuing their licenses are in the overwhelmingly small minority. Not all FFLs are corrupt; just a select few "bad apples."
Shut the fuck you condescending(me 2) piece of shit, you're extremely fucking one sided in all your arguements, so much that i can't imagine how smart you believe you are.
You talk like you just presented a genius take on every topic, even if you come up with arguements that are weak as fuck and has a ton of holes in them. And when someone points those holes out you make up some extremely vague counter arguement that sucks, or you just ignore it.
Then you of course make another shitty post like nothing happend directly afterwards, like you're still completely right, please get the fuck out of your imaginary world you pseudo intellectual piece of shit.
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
1. I'm not trolling. Just because I have consistently supported my statement with facts, figures, and statistics from the Department of Justice, and various non-profit organizations with no overt political orientation doesn't make me a troll.
If I was a troll, Hot_Bid, FakeSteve, or any of the other competent mods probably would have spoken to me already. I've received no such communications.
2. I dare you to find one unbiased source that disproves anything I've said. I'm directly calling you out, and challenging you.
I'd suggest we bet on this, but that would be overkill. I don't want to gain anything from your ignorance of the facts.
First, start with the Department of Justice in the US. You will find that law-abiding citizens do not contribute to crime. CHL holders have a crime rate five times lower than that of criminals, which is lower than the crime rate of law enforcement officers in many areas.
Second, look at statisticians' reports and criminologists' reports. You will find nothing that supports your point of view.
Third, I will give you one source that supports your point of view. Kellerman did a study a while back that resulted in the famous 43:1 ratio, demonstrating how dangerous guns are to citizens. The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one.
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
I don't think he's retarded.
Don't tell me a rapist would risk his life on a woman who may carry a concealed firearm. He'd have much more confidence in carrying out his wicked deed knowing that his victim only had a pepper spray or knew martial arts (heh what a joke).
And he's repeatedly quoted real sources to back up the assertion that gun control does not reduce crime (even increasing crime in certain states).
On December 09 2007 04:02 MarklarMarklar wrote: Shut the fuck you condescending(me 2) piece of shit, you're extremely fucking one sided in all your arguements, so much that i can't imagine how smart you believe you are.
You talk like you just presented a genius take on every topic, even if you come up with arguements that are weak as fuck and has a ton of holes in them. And when someone points those holes out you make up some extremely vague counter arguement that sucks, or you just ignore it.
Then you of course make another shitty post like nothing happend directly afterwards, like you're still completely right, please get the fuck out of your imaginary world you pseudo intellectual piece of shit.
I'm so smug about all of this because, frankly, gun control is a baseless, foundation-less point of view. The only "facts" that support your point of view are fabrications, or cleverly cited statistics out of context, conveniently ignoring the confounding variables.
Numbers can't lie. You are the only one with silly arguments here.
You think that if a la decides to ban guns from society the US will suddenly become like resident evil. Armless people except for a few ones, against the evil zombies. Truth is most people with a gun don't know how to use it. Truth is there are a lot of accidents with guns because people without training have them. Truth is your so praised entities that should check that people with the power to have a gun know how to use it, don't really do their job.
Criminals get hold of guns easily because laws give them easy access to them.
If you want to lower the criminal rates, you don't get your population scared and give them guns. Its a stupid solution. You educate the sectors where criminals come from. Because most of them don't become criminals for fun, they just don't see another (easier) way out of their situation.
Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?
Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
1. I'm not trolling. Just because I have consistently supported my statement with facts, figures, and statistics from the Department of Justice, and various non-profit organizations with no overt political orientation doesn't make me a troll.
If I was a troll, Hot_Bid, FakeSteve, or any of the other competent mods probably would have spoken to me already. I've received no such communications.
2. I dare you to find one unbiased source that disproves anything I've said. I'm directly calling you out, and challenging you.
I'd suggest we bet on this, but that would be overkill. I don't want to gain anything from your ignorance of the facts.
First, start with the Department of Justice in the US. You will find that law-abiding citizens do not contribute to crime. CHL holders have a crime rate five times lower than that of criminals, which is lower than the crime rate of law enforcement officers in many areas.
Second, look at statisticians' reports and criminologists' reports. You will find nothing that supports your point of view.
Third, I will give you one source that supports your point of view. Kellerman did a study a while back that resulted in the famous 43:1 ratio, demonstrating how dangerous guns are to citizens. The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one.
Is this a homework assignment? I'm not going to argue about something like guns when it's so painfully obvious they serve no good purpose. They're made to hurt and that is what they do. The 43:1 ratio alone should be reason enough for citizens NEVER to own a firearm.
The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one
How is that a proper argument? You're just steering the subject away from guns, other things commonly found in a home serve a purpose while the purpose of a gun is to inflict pain/death.
On December 09 2007 04:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?
Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.
Yeah we're so jealous of your freedom I think I'm just gonna go to a hooker legally and make her forget my huge jealousy of you being able to buy guns and then I'll legally smoke some pot. Goddamn my limited freedom.
Seriously though, poverty in also Africa doesn't affect us, that doesn't mean we can't care.
On December 09 2007 04:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?
Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.
Unfortunately, USA's guns business has a lot to do with the world and not just your country.
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
I don't think he's retarded.
Don't tell me a rapist would risk his life on a woman who may carry a concealed firearm. He'd have much more confidence in carrying out his wicked deed knowing that his victim only had a pepper spray or knew martial arts (heh what a joke).
And he's repeatedly quoted real sources to back up the assertion that gun control does not reduce crime (even increasing crime in certain states).
Exactly.
Criminals are deterred from committing a crime when they know their target may have guns. Don't believe me?
- Criminals are more afraid of confronting a potential victim with a gun than they are of the police. *U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985)
- 3/5 of convicted felons say they would not “mess around” with a person they suspected might have a gun. *U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985)
It's funny because everyone here understands why it's rediculous except you.
ps. I love your sig.
girlthatgetsraped: "would you hold on a sec while I get a gun out of my purse dear rapist that is holding a knife to my throat"
rapist: "sure thing ma'am!, meanwhile I'll put on a condom because I wouldnt possibly want to get you pregnant!"
*high five*
Statistical fact: for or against guns, everyone here thinks you're retarded. Why anyone here is actually trying to argue with such on obvious troll is beyond me.
1. I'm not trolling. Just because I have consistently supported my statement with facts, figures, and statistics from the Department of Justice, and various non-profit organizations with no overt political orientation doesn't make me a troll.
If I was a troll, Hot_Bid, FakeSteve, or any of the other competent mods probably would have spoken to me already. I've received no such communications.
2. I dare you to find one unbiased source that disproves anything I've said. I'm directly calling you out, and challenging you.
I'd suggest we bet on this, but that would be overkill. I don't want to gain anything from your ignorance of the facts.
First, start with the Department of Justice in the US. You will find that law-abiding citizens do not contribute to crime. CHL holders have a crime rate five times lower than that of criminals, which is lower than the crime rate of law enforcement officers in many areas.
Second, look at statisticians' reports and criminologists' reports. You will find nothing that supports your point of view.
Third, I will give you one source that supports your point of view. Kellerman did a study a while back that resulted in the famous 43:1 ratio, demonstrating how dangerous guns are to citizens. The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one.
Is this a homework assignment? I'm not going to argue about something like guns when it's so painfully obvious they serve no good purpose. They're made to hurt and that is what they do. The 43:1 ratio alone should be reason enough for citizens NEVER to own a firearm.
The best part is that his own theory proves that guns are significantly less dangerous than other things commonly found in a home, or in close proximity to one
How is that a proper argument? You're just steering the subject away from guns, other things commonly found in a home serve a purpose while the purpose of a gun is to inflict pain/death.
Sigh.
There is only one study with supports your point of view. The theory the major point said study is based on is inherently confounded due to unaccounted variables.
Quoting an inherently confounded statistic is statistically-insignificant.
On December 09 2007 04:14 IntoTheWow wrote: "statistics out of context" lol thats a new one.
Numbers can't lie. You are the only one with silly arguments here.
You think that if a la decides to ban guns from society the US will suddenly become like resident evil. Armless people except for a few ones, against the evil zombies. Truth is most people with a gun don't know how to use it. Truth is there are a lot of accidents with guns because people without training have them. Truth is your so praised entities that should check that people with the power to have a gun know how to use it, don't really do their job.
Criminals get hold of guns easily because laws give them easy access to them.
Criminals don't have easy access to guns because the laws give them easy access. That's completely asinine.
Criminals have access to guns because they are not bound by laws, hence their label.
Edit: Legal access to firearms present a short series of "hurdles," if you will. These "hurdles" are perceived as necessary by law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't care one way or the other, as they'll do whatever they need to to get a firearm if they want one.
Their pattern of behavior shows that they do not act within the laws.
On December 09 2007 04:27 CharlieMurphy wrote: Anyone ever notice that its always people from other countries (where guns aren't allowed) that like to argue about whether or not gunless society is good or bad?
Mind your own business. What do you care if us stupid americans have guns to kill each other? Its doesn't effect you one bit. I think you're just jealous of our simple freedom.
Unfortunately, USA's guns business has a lot to do with the world and not just your country.
So I come back home and notice that Mayson is still trolling here.
Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
I just read the argument about rape, so i decided to google the subject. Obviously not completly legit, but heres what i found on Canadain rape victims found from "women against violence against woman." Catchy title.
A 1993 survey found that one-half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. Almost 60% of these women were the targets of more than one violent incidents. (Statistics Canada, "The Violence Against Women Survey," The Daily, November 18, 1993)
We could say then, by having a weapon, 1/2 of women in canada would have shot a man? How many millions people shot would that be? Holy... But still, sexual assault is NOT something to laugh about..... yet im not going any further with that thought. haha.
Personally, im pro gun control. Canada has a fairly strict gun control policy and has fewer gun related deaths (per capita? im not sure and im NOT gona google again lol) And from what ive overheard on the news and radio, a very very high percentage of the illegal guns come from the states anyways.
But anyways. Don't feel like reading more than the last page of the posts to contribute cheers
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote:
I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
When you're inundated with "Fuck you's" from a variety of angry people, you may miss a couple of legitimate posts. Perhaps you can restate your question or post, and I'm sure he'll respond again. Or perhaps I could respond, since I take the anti-gun control position.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
One of the first, if not the first, to be insulting was Mayson, which I think you'll find if you go back and reread. And while you are there, you can also find where he was refuted but failed to respond, and just kept rewording his original position over and over and over, except a little bit more tastelessly each time.
qgart brought up multiple times that Mayson's claim that legal gun ownership is actually a deterrent in crime rate, using Mayson's own source.
I and others brought up the flaw in his logic in saying that gun controls only noticeable effect was to remove the self-protection that regular citizens have against armed criminals. The first problem is the one I just mentioned. The other is that it is demonstrably false: I already showed a source that said how most guns are obtained through the same sources intended for legal use. Whether stealing the guns from legal owners (10-15%), or easily circumventing gun laws, almost 100% of criminal sources of guns stem from legal sources. Almost all of the ways guns are currently obtained by criminals would be removed, yet he says, over and over, that there would be no noticeable effect on criminals. He just rewords what he already said, intentionally ignoring the rebuttal while playing a victim, becoming insulting, and praising himself for his "logic". This is in order to annoy people or get attention, or something similarly pathetic. This is why we insult/ignore him, at this point. I won't be reading any of his posts.
I'm happy to debate with you, but don't waste your time defending a lowly false persona.
Servolisk, you are the one ignoring facts. You and baal are pretty much of the same mindset, saying that removal of legal sources of guns would remove the supply that illegal owners garner from.
How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you.
And I'll stop busting your balls when you stop busting mine; you came in with implied ad hominem ("people like HeadBangaa") and I answered in step.
On December 09 2007 11:45 Skye_MyO wrote: I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
Look, my hockey team just lost pretty badly. So I'm not going to waste the night in front of my computer copy/pasting arguments from my previous posts. Let's just say that when one of my argument challenged his logic, he showed his true colors by making racist remarks. After that he just rewinded his tape, waited for a new post and rolled his tape again on the new poster, seemingly making it look like he has answers to everything.
If you think Mayson did not insult anyone, read the very first sentence of the very first post he made. It's on page 6 if I'm correct. When you start being condescending to ppl for pages and pages, ppl will react to it.
Also, you should notice how you can pretty much find anything you want to find with Google. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of his posts are directly copy/pasted from the websites he found.
First of all I agree with mayson, he has bin good in this thread, keep it up. And intothewow. If you dont know what statistics out of context is, ask a lawyer and he will write you a book about it.
Edit: I mean I agree in how he has dominated most part of this thread except a few important things he didnt want to reply to , think it was one of servolisk posts. Oh and yea iam totally for Gun control. I actually attended a seminarium regarding gun control, and the PHD proffesor who was leading it brought up the Usa situation. After those hours one couldnt possibly argue against him, he crushed everything.
On December 09 2007 12:30 HeadBangaa wrote: This topic is spent.
Servolisk, you are the one ignoring facts. You and baal are pretty much of the same mindset, saying that removal of legal sources of guns would remove the supply that illegal owners garner from.
How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you.
First of all, there are some notable differences between the manufacturing of alcohol, drugs, and guns. Any amateur can follow guides and make the first two, and there can be small operations all over the place. Guns are obviously a lot more difficult.
They also don't compare well when it comes to transportation. You can't swallow a gun and then...retrieve it later, after you've passed through customs. Wouldn't you imagine moving guns would be a great deal more difficult than inconspicuous little things that are measured in grams?
I disagree on the point that criminals create the demand for guns. Far more demand in the US comes from non-criminals, going by who buys more guns.
As for a comparison to prohibition... I'm not entirely sure you are correct that it was a failure to enforce. I've heard before that alcohol consumption was down a great deal, and that it would of continued to decrease if it had stayed as a law longer.
A quick google finds,
A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed---so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto)
As for precedent, what about the precedent of other countries with total bans on guns, plenty of criminals, yet they have managed not to only let a minor portion of criminals get a hold of guns? I'm not sure, but I believe Russia is an example of that.
On December 09 2007 12:30 HeadBangaa wrote: How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you.
A lot of people covered that already. To put it simply: - Drugs are easier to smuggle. Smuggling a small quantity of drugs still pays off. - Firearms are harder to smuggle. You would need to smuggle a crapload of it if you want to see some profit.
So if it is hard to smuggle firearms through borders and it doesn't pay off nearly as much as other illegal businesses, it is logical to think that either firearms availibilty will decrease, or/and firearms cost will skyrocket.
And yeah mayson , just wondering something? Lets say Usa banned guns , so that only The military can have it and no else , not even the weapons used for hunting. Then you close all the gun stores, you let the country's people know that they have 2 months to turn in the weapons to , lets say their local policestation. you also let everyone know that anybody who is caught with a gun/rifle will get sentenced to jail for a minimum of 20 years. Dont you think that after a few years almost none will own a weapon? Ofcourse the rifle is only the means that is used to carry out an criminal act, but you cant get from the fact that guns make it whole lot of fucking easier, and you can pick of many people. if you dont belive that we can might aswell allow tanks, attack helikopters, f35's , fucking nukes for the society to buy. This way only mainly the really , really large criminals will be able to obtain weapons, and they hardly get them to go picking of people at a school...
On December 09 2007 12:30 HeadBangaa wrote: This topic is spent.
Servolisk, you are the one ignoring facts. You and baal are pretty much of the same mindset, saying that removal of legal sources of guns would remove the supply that illegal owners garner from.
How do you differentiate the situation created by outlawing guns from that of prohibition and war on drugs? Drug trafficking will simply be amongst gun trafficking. The market always prevails. Criminals create a demand for guns, not vice versa. This has been stated in many different ways throughout this thread by several people, yet you completely ignore it. You are ignoring the failures of your ideas when applied to other domains. Statistics and historical precedent defeat you.
First of all, there are some notable differences between the manufacturing of alcohol, drugs, and guns. Any amateur can follow guides and make the first two, and there can be small operations all over the place. Guns are obviously a lot more difficult.
They also don't compare well when it comes to transportation. You can't swallow a gun and then...retrieve it later, after you've passed through customs. Wouldn't you imagine moving guns would be a great deal more difficult than inconspicuous little things that are measured in grams?
A bit naive. I'm smoking Mexican mota as we speak. And it wasn't transported by-the-gram in some chilango's ass; it's bricked (low quality) or sealed, and transported in bulk. Their is a distribution heirarchy on this side of the border.
I disagree on the point that criminals create the demand for guns. Far more demand in the US comes from non-criminals, going by who buys more guns.
Yeah that's true, but I was speaking about criminal ownership.
As for a comparison to prohibition... I'm not entirely sure you are correct that it was a failure to enforce. I've heard before that alcohol consumption was down a great deal, and that it would of continued to decrease if it had stayed as a law longer.
A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed---so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto)
Doesn't say anything to support your points, though. Surely, if guns became 100% illegal/zero-tolerance, all law-abiding gun owners would turn in their guns. Effectively, there would be less guns per civilian. Effectively, only criminals would have guns, or seek to obtain them. I'm not saying gun control produces no results, I'm saying that the results are negative: you make it illegal to defend yourself against criminals.
This is like any policy which is based on mistrust of the reasonability of the average person. eg, 'Individuals driving in private cars' is not a necessity. We could implement a pure-public transportation system, and surely the results would be outstanding. No more drunk driving deaths, no more road-ragers. But at the cost of disenfranchisement. And it's not like "car-trafficking" would be easy, but is that really the issue? You remove the choice from the people, because you don't trust the people. You take this for granted, because people have been driving cars your whole life. I presume that, if cars were invented in the cultural context you subscribe to, the priviledge to drive would be as suspect as the priviledge to own a gun. And I don't need to post statistics about vehicle-related deaths. But I'm sure you'll waive this point off as riduculous, simply because you take driving for granted.
As for precedent, what about the precedent of other countries with total bans on guns, plenty of criminals, yet they have managed not to only let a minor portion of criminals get a hold of guns? I'm not sure, but I believe Russia is an example of that.
If we ignore all the significant geopolitical and domestic differences between the USA and Russia, that makes sense, yeah.
head banga that part about that it makes it illegal to protect against criminals is just utter bs. it doesnt make it illegal to protect agains an criminal, it makes it illegal to wear a pistol,rifle whatever. You can still protect your self against the criminals, or just call the police. And yes , it would occur situations where perhaps having a gun would of bin the only way to save your self, that doesnt mean that they should be allowed. And after a while I said in my previous post, less and less criminals would have weapons, and it would be almost impossible for them to obtain them(thats talking about a big percentage of the criminals).
and one thing, if you owned a gun , who would you protect ur self against and point a gun at , even shoot?. the guy who hits you for lets say accidently pushing him?, are you gonna shoot someone who is trying to rob a store with lets say a bat?, or you are out one night walking in a park and a guy is walking towards you and you get the idea that he is out after you, are you gonna draw ur gun?.
Its the fucking society that is fucked up that makes these things happen, and throwing rifles and sidearms into the soup aint gonna make it a safer place. Forza Pro gun control
On December 09 2007 13:50 SwedishHero wrote: And yes , it would occur situations where perhaps having a gun would of bin the only way to save your self, that doesnt mean that they should be allowed.
I fundamentally disagree with you on this point.
Your assumptions are different than mine based on cultural context. Your statement is counter-intuitive to the average American, I'm sure.
That is, to say, if we assume a situation where a gun would save you, yet on principle, shouldn't have the right to use it, yes, that's certainly an odd opinion.
Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore.
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die.
On December 09 2007 14:05 SwedishHero wrote: Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore.
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die.
You really should think and/or take some magic sources (to improve INT) before you try to prove your point. First of all, yes he understood what you meant about not all guns being taken care of yet. Second of all, if we shouldn't allow guns because then we'll need to allow bazookas... then we shouldn't allow bats because then we need to allow swords. And we shouldn't allow knives, because then we'll need to allow bats. It's a spectrum and where to draw the line is quite subjective. Your decision to draw the line just below guns is not so obvious and intuitive as you are making it sound. I also am surprised you think if guns are actually out of the picture that means all muggings will become nonlethal punching battles... well at least that shows you aren't directly a danger to society...
Most Dutch criminals are pathetic, they use knives because guns are hard to get. An avarage thug in a bad neighbourhood has a knive.They have to get really close to rob ya. If you can outrun them youre save lol. Only well organised criminals with connections have guns.
I don't advocate any immediate major changes in gun ownership policy in the United States. I advocate gun control such as clip limitation, and cool down times. These laws serve as a means of education. People are taught clip limitation inhibits people, like the maniac who slaughtered the 9 starting this thread, from killing that extra 8th or 9th person before running out of bullets. This teaches kids who learn about guns that killing others is wrong, and keeping people alive is good. Cool down time legislation teaches people to think about using a gun. You are forced to wait to give you time to think. This teaches the Importance of thinking before acting which is something we need a lot more of.
Now, I stress these minor gun control laws should be acknowledged for their educational potential. These laws do not detract in any major way from protection, nor do they strongly influence gun ownership.
Personally, I advocate the United States moving away from gun ownership. I've posted various things concerning the lingering presence of guns in the U.S. We have a lot of land for hunting, the presence of "the right to bear arms" in our constitution (which is a peculiarity among constitutions) etc... Whatever the reason the United States, as a culture, has stayed with personal fire arms in unimportant. I want to talk about another culture's view on guns, specifically Europe. European countries have moved away from guns and have reduced crime rates and murder rates to show for it. Culturally, Europeans denounce gun ownership and use as unnecessary. The result of these grounded norms is an environment where gun ownership is so taboo; people don't have a purpose for guns. Even criminals follow suit. The penalties for owning a gun are so harsh; it's not worth even risking. Murder rates are reduced in Europe as a result.
This is the type of attitude I would like to see develop in, not just the United States, but worldwide. The potential effects of an anti-gun culture are clear. Thus I advocate gun control as a means of education and eventual cultural drift. The United States is not an ethnically homogeneous culture, but we accept certain norms nationally. We have accepted the women’s right to vote, the premise slavery is wrong etc... The rise of gun control in the United States is a sign of cultural drift. I advocate this drift and the means to support it.
Eventually, one day, the United States might be ready to pass hard line gun control laws. That day is not today. Guns are too prevalent in our culture to make any outright bans effective or logical. But I implore everyone in the gun control debate to think about clip limitations and cool down times in terms of education, not just the "right to protect oneself," or other common mannerisms.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: So I come back home and notice that Mayson is still trolling here.
Perceptual distortion and selective attention.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
I did destroy your logic.
There's only one study published that supports your view on gun control that hasn't been retracted, and the main point of the article is inherently confounded by extenuating variables not accounted for.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
If you support the ban of the effective means by which one may defend themselves, then you effectively support the lack of resistance when one's life is threatened.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
We're not condescending; we use logic and applicable statistics to support our point of view. You use opinion and emotion.
One is quantifiable, and has tangible results. The other does not.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I'm not trolling. Present evidence that I'm trolling other than that: (1) I've defended my point of view using logic, (2) rational thought, and (3) unbiased statistics.
On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote: I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
I've deliberately ignored any posts made by any poster not demonstrating the same level of commitment to supporting a given point of view, or rebutting an opposing point of view.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
When you're inundated with "Fuck you's" from a variety of angry people, you may miss a couple of legitimate posts. Perhaps you can restate your question or post, and I'm sure he'll respond again. Or perhaps I could respond, since I take the anti-gun control position.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
One of the first, if not the first, to be insulting was Mayson, which I think you'll find if you go back and reread. And while you are there, you can also find where he was refuted but failed to respond, and just kept rewording his original position over and over and over, except a little bit more tastelessly each time.
My insults have been in my own defense; I have never cast the first stone.
I have been repeatedly insulted, berated, and belittled by numerous posters in this thread, yet you call me out on the few times I've done so in my own defense.
I don't find it at all ironic that you support gun control, yet accuse me of derogatory behavior performed in my own defense.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: qgart brought up multiple times that Mayson's claim that legal gun ownership is actually a deterrent in crime rate, using Mayson's own source.
Except that criminology studies have shown that criminals are deterred by the private and legal ownership of firearms by potential victims. That's not a refutable fact.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: I and others brought up the flaw in his logic in saying that gun controls only noticeable effect was to remove the self-protection that regular citizens have against armed criminals.
Gun control would pass laws aimed at people who are defined as not following the laws. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws. Passing more laws to make them follow the laws doesn't make sense because criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.
Keep passing laws, though. Eventually you'll find the right one.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: The first problem is the one I just mentioned. The other is that it is demonstrably false: I already showed a source that said how most guns are obtained through the same sources intended for legal use.
So is the problem that guns are available, or that guns are available to criminals?
There is a serious problem with your logic, being that cutting off the flow of all guns completely leaves law-abiding civilians disarmed and defenseless against armed aggression.
Instead of attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, you would instead prefer to attack the source of firearms itself.
You really seem to have an ulterior motive: disarming the civilian population.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: Whether stealing the guns from legal owners (10-15%), or easily circumventing gun laws, almost 100% of criminal sources of guns stem from legal sources.
An FFL selling guns out the back door is not a legal source.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: Almost all of the ways guns are currently obtained by criminals would be removed, yet he says, over and over, that there would be no noticeable effect on criminals.
There is a difference between banning the legal sale of firearms completely and having the ATF aggressively enforce firearms trafficking laws, revoking the FFLs of those feeding the illegal markets with firearms intended for the legal markets.
One hurts law-abiding civilians. One doesn't. You pick the former; I pick the latter.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: He just rewords what he already said, intentionally ignoring the rebuttal while playing a victim, becoming insulting, and praising himself for his "logic". This is in order to annoy people or get attention, or something similarly pathetic. This is why we insult/ignore him, at this point. I won't be reading any of his posts.
It is not in order to annoy others or draw attention; it's simply a side-effect of the frustration when dealing with people who appear to lack coherent, individual, independent thought.
The facts do not support your point of view; it's quite simple. Your point of view is based more on emotion, and how you feel about things.
I'm not saying that banning the legal sale of firearms wouldn't have an impact on the flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals, but that same lack of flow of firearms would also mean law-abiding civilians could no longer defend themselves.
It's the "double-edged sword" logic I can not agree with. That would make me a traitor to my country and the human race as a whole.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: I'm happy to debate with you, but don't waste your time defending a lowly false persona.
Is there where I point out that you insulted me, and by your own logic, you must be trying to "annoy" me and draw "attention"? Servo, I do reckon you's a troll!
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: And yeah mayson , just wondering something?
Yes, my Swedish friend?
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Lets say Usa banned guns
That's a terrible idea.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: , so that only The military can have it and no else ,
That's a terrible idea, for reasons stated in the Constiution of the United States of America.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: not even the weapons used for hunting.
That's a bad idea, also.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Then you close all the gun stores, you let the country's people know that they have 2 months to turn in the weapons to ,
The spike in unemployment would be fun, and guns would not be "turned in," they would be bought back.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: lets say their local policestation. you also let everyone know that anybody who is caught with a gun/rifle will get sentenced to jail for a minimum of 20 years.
I bet the criminals will suddenly start following the laws, then!
That almost works, except that, by definition, criminals don't follow the laws. You can't make laws aimed at people who don't follow the laws. That makes no sense whatsoever.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Dont you think that after a few years almost none will own a weapon?
No, I think that immediately law-abiding citizens will comply, and then be defenseless to oppression, tyranny, and fear, whether the source be from the government, foreign or domestic, or criminals.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Ofcourse the rifle is only the means that is used to carry out an criminal act, but you cant get from the fact that guns make it whole lot of fucking easier, and you can pick of many people.
Wrong. Handguns are the weapon of choice amongst criminals.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: if you dont belive that we can might aswell allow tanks, attack helikopters, f35's , fucking nukes for the society to buy.
That's a cop-out, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: This way only mainly the really , really large criminals will be able to obtain weapons, and they hardly get them to go picking of people at a school...
A forcibly disarmed population is a population open to oppression, tryanny, and fear. Look at Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge.
(I'm not a troll for pointing out the obvious. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean I'm wrong.)
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: A summary of my view on gun control:
About time.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: I don't advocate any immediate major changes in gun ownership policy in the United States.
Neither do I.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: I advocate gun control such as clip limitation, and cool down times.
Neither of which have any bearing on a criminal's ability to commit crimes, or takes lives.
You know how you get around clip limitations? You buy "pre-ban" magazines. Or you could just reload.
You know how you get around cool-down periods? Criminals don't typically legally purchase firearms to go kill people. Law-abiding citizens aren't necessarily punished by cool-down periods, as crimes against them aren't scheduled, but then again, I've never found any evidence that cool-down periods actually work.
I could argue that it presents a barrier that forces them into other means of committing the murder the cool-down period was designed to prevent.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: These laws serve as a means of education.
No, they don't. They serve as restrictions.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: People are taught clip limitation inhibits people, like the maniac who slaughtered the 9 starting this thread, from killing that extra 8th or 9th person before running out of bullets.
If he was using ban-legal magazines, it just means he'd need to reload one more time.
Magazine capacity limits don't keep people alive; aggressively eliminating the threat does.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This teaches kids who learn about guns that killing others is wrong, and keeping people alive is good.
Yes, magazine capacity limits on the federal lawbooks teaches children about morals.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Cool down time legislation teaches people to think about using a gun.
"Fuck, I can't get a gun to kill this person because of that cool-down period. I'm not a criminal, so I don't know how to buy a gun illegally out of the back of some guy's van, so I guess I'll have to do it some other way."
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: You are forced to wait to give you time to think. This teaches the Importance of thinking before acting which is something we need a lot more of.
Do you really think I'm going to believe that gun laws are supposed to educate the entire civilian population of morals?
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Now, I stress these minor gun control laws should be acknowledged for their educational potential.
You know what I call education? Mandatory safety classes taught by certified NRA instructors.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: These laws do not detract in any major way from protection, nor do they strongly influence gun ownership.
No they don't.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Personally, I advocate the United States moving away from gun ownership. I've posted various things concerning the lingering presence of guns in the U.S. We have a lot of land for hunting, the presence of "the right to bear arms" in our constitution (which is a peculiarity among constitutions) etc... Whatever the reason the United States, as a culture, has stayed with personal fire arms in unimportant. I want to talk about another culture's view on guns, specifically Europe. European countries have moved away from guns and have reduced crime rates and murder rates to show for it. Culturally, Europeans denounce gun ownership and use as unnecessary. The result of these grounded norms is an environment where gun ownership is so taboo; people don't have a purpose for guns. Even criminals follow suit. The penalties for owning a gun are so harsh; it's not worth even risking. Murder rates are reduced in Europe as a result.
This is your own personal agenda, which is the ulterior motive many anti-gun people share.
This has nothing to do with gun control; this is just simply you trying to force your own views on others.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is the type of attitude I would like to see develop in, not just the United States, but worldwide. The potential effects of an anti-gun culture are clear. Thus I advocate gun control as a means of education and eventual cultural drift. The United States is not an ethnically homogeneous culture, but we accept certain norms nationally. We have accepted the women’s right to vote, the premise slavery is wrong etc... The rise of gun control in the United States is a sign of cultural drift. I advocate this drift and the means to support it.
It's a utopian ideal to long for a society devoid of violence.
Wake up.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Eventually, one day, the United States might be ready to pass hard line gun control laws. That day is not today. Guns are too prevalent in our culture to make any outright bans effective or logical. But I implore everyone in the gun control debate to think about clip limitations and cool down times in terms of education, not just the "right to protect oneself," or other common mannerisms.
Maybe.
--
You anti-gun people really need to understand a few things:
The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens.
You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges.
Anti-gun people seem to think it's more important to rid the world of guns entirely, rather than uphold the laws.
There's a difference between attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, and attacking the sources of firearms--period.
Depriving law-abiding citizens of the means with which to defend themselves when criminals won't follow new laws is asinine.
The availability of firearms on the illegal markets can be reduced without impacting citizens' rights. What's wrong with that? Oh, that's right: nothing at all.
On December 09 2007 14:05 SwedishHero wrote: Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore.
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die.
Second of all, if we shouldn't allow guns because then we'll need to allow bazookas... then we shouldn't allow bats because then we need to allow swords. And we shouldn't allow knives, because then we'll need to allow bats. It's a spectrum and where to draw the line is quite subjective. Your decision to draw the line just below guns is not so obvious and intuitive as you are making it sound. I also am surprised you think if guns are actually out of the picture that means all muggings will become nonlethal punching battles... well at least that shows you aren't directly a danger to society...
His logic isn't flawed at all.
A gun, just like a rocket launcher, is only made to hurt people. A knife or a bat can be used for things that have nothing to do with hurting people at all.
So we draw the line between pure weapons (Guns, swords, crossbows, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks etc) and tools that can be used as weapons (Knifes, cars etc), No part of society would stop function if we outlawed gun ownership among the normal population.
Now to how criminals gets the guns, the pro gun people say that they would just smuggle the guns even if they were illegal just like drugs? Do you guys realise that:
1: Guns are expensive to produce no matter were you produce it, so the purchace price in the countries were you can get them will be a lot higher than drugs wich only needs a farmer who is paid a dollar a day.
2: Guns don't have nearly the same street value, smuggling 2 kg of drugs will pay a ton more than a pistol and some rounds. Also the drugs are easier to hide since metal detectors cant find them and are a lot less bulky. Risk vs reward, even the criminals rather get more money than less.
3: Now that guns are hard to smuggle the price will sky rocket. It wont be economical for criminals to own guns anylonger. A simple mugger, house breaker or madman wont have the money for a gun, and organised crime don't target low money things such as common people but instead go for high value targets. If a mugger use a gun in this setting he will be a high priority for the police since having a pistol is a much harder crime than mugging a person, making the gun a bad deal for most criminals.
4: Now that the majority of criminals don't have guns, there is no need for the civilians to own guns to protect themselves. Its exactly the same logic as "The criminals don't have tanks so you dont need rocket launchers to defend yourself".
However for this to work you need: 1: Same rule in the whole US, it is too easy to get things across state borders. 2: Harsh penalities for carrying a gun, doubble the punishment for most criminals carrying guns, this together with much higher gun prices will be an effective deterent. If you don't have the money (Wich most low lifes dont) no fucking black market guy will ever sell you his smuggled gun wich he put down a ton of risk and invested a lot of money in getting it there.
Now with that system the ilegal gun count will slowly but surely dwindle down to european levels.
However making those changes wont happen easily for simply the same reasons its so hard to ban smoking, its always hard to change patterns deeply rooted into any society.
On December 09 2007 18:16 Mayson wrote: The possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant to gun control.
In fact it is, your only valid concern about why guns should be legal is "All the criminals will have guns so I need a gun too". Exactly the same things can be said about nuclear weapons, you cant defend yourself against a nuclear missile with a rifle, and if the criminals have nuclear missiles you also need a nuclear missile as a deterent for the criminal, since then he wont want to launch the missile against you since he nows that you will launch it back, no?
And then we can ask ourselves, why dont the criminals have nuclear missiles? Is it maybe beacuse theyre outlawed and have very high control and beacuse its simply not economical for a criminal to own a nuclear missile in most settings? But im sure that if you could buy nuclear missiles at your local walmart every other criminal would have one, don't you think so?
And to make sure that the nuclear missiles wont be missused we make a law that says "You cant launch a missile against someone who hasnt already launched a missile against you", so in effect only the criminals kills people and all the law abiding citisens do not.
Would you then say that making nuclear missiles ilegal would only cause a dissaster since then only the criminals will have nuclear missles and the law abiding citisens go around threatened all the time?
On December 09 2007 18:24 Klockan3 wrote: 4: Now that the majority of criminals don't have guns, there is no need for the civilians to own guns to protect themselves.
i don't think people see guns as just a way to fight other people with guns.
any variety of dangers posed to me i would like to have a projectile weapon of some sort.
criminals with knives, bats, or even unarmed can be tricky to defeat without some form of range advantage on your part. be that a taser weapon or what have you, one still craves a range advantage.
even camping in the wild applies, if you're to be confronted by a cougar, wolf, or bear, nothing substitutes for a ranged weapon in terms of civilian security.
edit: note i'm not saying i disagree with gun control, i just know there are quite a few situations where i'd like to be armed
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
I did destroy your logic.
There's only one study published that supports your view on gun control that hasn't been retracted, and the main point of the article is inherently confounded by extenuating variables not accounted for.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
If you support the ban of the effective means by which one may defend themselves, then you effectively support the lack of resistance when one's life is threatened.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
We're not condescending; we use logic and applicable statistics to support our point of view. You use opinion and emotion.
One is quantifiable, and has tangible results. The other does not.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I'm not trolling. Present evidence that I'm trolling other than that: (1) I've defended my point of view using logic, (2) rational thought, and (3) unbiased statistics.
On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote: I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
I've deliberately ignored any posts made by any poster not demonstrating the same level of commitment to supporting a given point of view, or rebutting an opposing point of view.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
On December 09 2007 07:56 aRod wrote:
I know Mayson has quite deliberately ignored my posts.
When you're inundated with "Fuck you's" from a variety of angry people, you may miss a couple of legitimate posts. Perhaps you can restate your question or post, and I'm sure he'll respond again. Or perhaps I could respond, since I take the anti-gun control position.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: Mayson, you say that we call you troll because you destroyed our logic. It's quite the contrary. Many ppl destroyed your arguments. When that happened, you simply started ignoring them, waiting on someone else to post something, and divert the attention to the new poster.
According to you, the typical canadian is in favor of rape, murder... Does that make you any different than that lazerflip kid who said that there are less crime in Canada because there are less blacks?
According to you, pro-gun control ppl are condescending. If I remember correctly, you are the one who started with the "baaaaa goes the sheep", the "all you do is regurgitate the Brady campaign", the "all pro-gun control ppl can't think for themselves", the "you do not comprehend English very well"... so on and so forth.
Everything I mentioned above makes you a troll.
I disagree, he conducted himself extremely well for the majority of the discussion until the unending insults caused him to retaliate. And no, nobody "destroyed" his logic. If anything, after a barrage of insults, Mayson would respond with facts, statistics and sources and they kept quiet, only to return several pages later with more insults.
One of the first, if not the first, to be insulting was Mayson, which I think you'll find if you go back and reread. And while you are there, you can also find where he was refuted but failed to respond, and just kept rewording his original position over and over and over, except a little bit more tastelessly each time.
My insults have been in my own defense; I have never cast the first stone.
I have been repeatedly insulted, berated, and belittled by numerous posters in this thread, yet you call me out on the few times I've done so in my own defense.
I don't find it at all ironic that you support gun control, yet accuse me of derogatory behavior performed in my own defense.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: qgart brought up multiple times that Mayson's claim that legal gun ownership is actually a deterrent in crime rate, using Mayson's own source.
Except that criminology studies have shown that criminals are deterred by the private and legal ownership of firearms by potential victims. That's not a refutable fact.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: I and others brought up the flaw in his logic in saying that gun controls only noticeable effect was to remove the self-protection that regular citizens have against armed criminals.
Gun control would pass laws aimed at people who are defined as not following the laws. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws. Passing more laws to make them follow the laws doesn't make sense because criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.
Keep passing laws, though. Eventually you'll find the right one.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: The first problem is the one I just mentioned. The other is that it is demonstrably false: I already showed a source that said how most guns are obtained through the same sources intended for legal use.
So is the problem that guns are available, or that guns are available to criminals?
There is a serious problem with your logic, being that cutting off the flow of all guns completely leaves law-abiding civilians disarmed and defenseless against armed aggression.
Instead of attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, you would instead prefer to attack the source of firearms itself.
You really seem to have an ulterior motive: disarming the civilian population.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: Whether stealing the guns from legal owners (10-15%), or easily circumventing gun laws, almost 100% of criminal sources of guns stem from legal sources.
An FFL selling guns out the back door is not a legal source.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: Almost all of the ways guns are currently obtained by criminals would be removed, yet he says, over and over, that there would be no noticeable effect on criminals.
There is a difference between banning the legal sale of firearms completely and having the ATF aggressively enforce firearms trafficking laws, revoking the FFLs of those feeding the illegal markets with firearms intended for the legal markets.
One hurts law-abiding civilians. One doesn't. You pick the former; I pick the latter.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: He just rewords what he already said, intentionally ignoring the rebuttal while playing a victim, becoming insulting, and praising himself for his "logic". This is in order to annoy people or get attention, or something similarly pathetic. This is why we insult/ignore him, at this point. I won't be reading any of his posts.
It is not in order to annoy others or draw attention; it's simply a side-effect of the frustration when dealing with people who appear to lack coherent, individual, independent thought.
The facts do not support your point of view; it's quite simple. Your point of view is based more on emotion, and how you feel about things.
I'm not saying that banning the legal sale of firearms wouldn't have an impact on the flow of firearms from FFLs to criminals, but that same lack of flow of firearms would also mean law-abiding civilians could no longer defend themselves.
It's the "double-edged sword" logic I can not agree with. That would make me a traitor to my country and the human race as a whole.
On December 09 2007 12:07 Servolisk wrote: I'm happy to debate with you, but don't waste your time defending a lowly false persona.
Is there where I point out that you insulted me, and by your own logic, you must be trying to "annoy" me and draw "attention"? Servo, I do reckon you's a troll!
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Then you close all the gun stores, you let the country's people know that they have 2 months to turn in the weapons to ,
The spike in unemployment would be fun, and guns would not be "turned in," they would be bought back.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: lets say their local policestation. you also let everyone know that anybody who is caught with a gun/rifle will get sentenced to jail for a minimum of 20 years.
I bet the criminals will suddenly start following the laws, then!
That almost works, except that, by definition, criminals don't follow the laws. You can't make laws aimed at people who don't follow the laws. That makes no sense whatsoever.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Dont you think that after a few years almost none will own a weapon?
No, I think that immediately law-abiding citizens will comply, and then be defenseless to oppression, tyranny, and fear, whether the source be from the government, foreign or domestic, or criminals.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: Ofcourse the rifle is only the means that is used to carry out an criminal act, but you cant get from the fact that guns make it whole lot of fucking easier, and you can pick of many people.
Wrong. Handguns are the weapon of choice amongst criminals.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: if you dont belive that we can might aswell allow tanks, attack helikopters, f35's , fucking nukes for the society to buy.
That's a cop-out, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
On December 09 2007 13:01 SwedishHero wrote: This way only mainly the really , really large criminals will be able to obtain weapons, and they hardly get them to go picking of people at a school...
A forcibly disarmed population is a population open to oppression, tryanny, and fear. Look at Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge.
(I'm not a troll for pointing out the obvious. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean I'm wrong.)
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: I advocate gun control such as clip limitation, and cool down times.
Neither of which have any bearing on a criminal's ability to commit crimes, or takes lives.
You know how you get around clip limitations? You buy "pre-ban" magazines. Or you could just reload.
You know how you get around cool-down periods? Criminals don't typically legally purchase firearms to go kill people. Law-abiding citizens aren't necessarily punished by cool-down periods, as crimes against them aren't scheduled, but then again, I've never found any evidence that cool-down periods actually work.
I could argue that it presents a barrier that forces them into other means of committing the murder the cool-down period was designed to prevent.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: People are taught clip limitation inhibits people, like the maniac who slaughtered the 9 starting this thread, from killing that extra 8th or 9th person before running out of bullets.
If he was using ban-legal magazines, it just means he'd need to reload one more time.
Magazine capacity limits don't keep people alive; aggressively eliminating the threat does.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Cool down time legislation teaches people to think about using a gun.
"Fuck, I can't get a gun to kill this person because of that cool-down period. I'm not a criminal, so I don't know how to buy a gun illegally out of the back of some guy's van, so I guess I'll have to do it some other way."
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: You are forced to wait to give you time to think. This teaches the Importance of thinking before acting which is something we need a lot more of.
Do you really think I'm going to believe that gun laws are supposed to educate the entire civilian population of morals?
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Personally, I advocate the United States moving away from gun ownership. I've posted various things concerning the lingering presence of guns in the U.S. We have a lot of land for hunting, the presence of "the right to bear arms" in our constitution (which is a peculiarity among constitutions) etc... Whatever the reason the United States, as a culture, has stayed with personal fire arms in unimportant. I want to talk about another culture's view on guns, specifically Europe. European countries have moved away from guns and have reduced crime rates and murder rates to show for it. Culturally, Europeans denounce gun ownership and use as unnecessary. The result of these grounded norms is an environment where gun ownership is so taboo; people don't have a purpose for guns. Even criminals follow suit. The penalties for owning a gun are so harsh; it's not worth even risking. Murder rates are reduced in Europe as a result.
This is your own personal agenda, which is the ulterior motive many anti-gun people share.
This has nothing to do with gun control; this is just simply you trying to force your own views on others.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is the type of attitude I would like to see develop in, not just the United States, but worldwide. The potential effects of an anti-gun culture are clear. Thus I advocate gun control as a means of education and eventual cultural drift. The United States is not an ethnically homogeneous culture, but we accept certain norms nationally. We have accepted the women’s right to vote, the premise slavery is wrong etc... The rise of gun control in the United States is a sign of cultural drift. I advocate this drift and the means to support it.
It's a utopian ideal to long for a society devoid of violence.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Eventually, one day, the United States might be ready to pass hard line gun control laws. That day is not today. Guns are too prevalent in our culture to make any outright bans effective or logical. But I implore everyone in the gun control debate to think about clip limitations and cool down times in terms of education, not just the "right to protect oneself," or other common mannerisms.
Maybe.
--
You anti-gun people really need to understand a few things:
The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens.
You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges.
Anti-gun people seem to think it's more important to rid the world of guns entirely, rather than uphold the laws.
There's a difference between attacking the sources of firearms for criminals, and attacking the sources of firearms--period.
Depriving law-abiding citizens of the means with which to defend themselves when criminals won't follow new laws is asinine.
The availability of firearms on the illegal markets can be reduced without impacting citizens' rights. What's wrong with that? Oh, that's right: nothing at all.
this maybe the longest post i've ever witnessed on TL
i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
On December 09 2007 18:24 Klockan3 wrote: 4: Now that the majority of criminals don't have guns, there is no need for the civilians to own guns to protect themselves.
i don't think people see guns as just a way to fight other people with guns.
any variety of dangers posed to me i would like to have a projectile weapon of some sort.
criminals with knives, bats, or even unarmed can be tricky to defeat without some form of range advantage on your part. be that a taser weapon or what have you, one still craves a range advantage.
even camping in the wild applies, if you're to be confronted by a cougar, wolf, or bear, nothing substitutes for a ranged weapon in terms of civilian security.
edit: note i'm not saying i disagree with gun control, i just know there are quite a few situations where i'd like to be armed
edit2: plus i like the movie taxi driver
Ofcourse, you always want to be better armed than your opponent, but the thing is that giving people who arent criminals guns will also give criminals guns.
If i could choose between getting mugged by a knifeguy when im unarmed, or getting mugged by a guy with a pistol and i also got a pistol i know what i would choose any day. And as i explained earlier people wont use pistols for petty crimes such as mugging since pistols will be way to expensive.
Edit:
To fakesteve- I think that he somehow imagines that criminals are a special type of people, and that its easy to see who is a criminal and who isn't. In fact, everyone is a potential criminal, its all about how far they are pushed.
And we don't remove everyones right to bear arms either, the Police can still have arms. Anyone but the police aren't educated enough and controlled enoguh to be sure that they will have only honest and lawfull use of the gun.
On December 09 2007 18:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
So is the logic that things should be illegal because some people start off by doing legal things with an eventual malicious intent.
I think that he somehow imagines that criminals are a special type of people, and that its easy to see who is a criminal and who isn't. In fact, everyone is a potential criminal, its all about how far they are pushed.
How far they are pushed? It is a person's conscious decision to do something.
On December 09 2007 18:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
So is the logic that things should be illegal because some people start off by doing legal things with an eventual malicious intent.
Logic is that something which causes harm but no benefits have no reason to be legal.
In this case, lax gun laws allow the US criminals to have a steady and easy income of firearms. Now it also allows the general population to have firearms, however in a gunfight the criminal always gets the element of surprise. If you have a concealed gun on you, and someone points a gun on you, you cant do shit really while instead if he had a knife you can always run no matter if you are armed or not, guns give a lot more advantage to criminals than to honest people.
On December 09 2007 18:16 Mayson wrote: The possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant to gun control.
Then rape or knives aren't either, Doctor Genius.
Because your average criminal has the monetary means to obtain nuclear weapons, right? Most countries can't afford it. Don't be an idiot.
how can you even discount super criminals WTF osama bin laden anyone? hitler? they would rape and murder a nuclear weaponless country if they had nuclear weapons so why shouldn't these examples count
On December 09 2007 14:05 SwedishHero wrote: Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore.
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die.
Second of all, if we shouldn't allow guns because then we'll need to allow bazookas... then we shouldn't allow bats because then we need to allow swords. And we shouldn't allow knives, because then we'll need to allow bats. It's a spectrum and where to draw the line is quite subjective. Your decision to draw the line just below guns is not so obvious and intuitive as you are making it sound. I also am surprised you think if guns are actually out of the picture that means all muggings will become nonlethal punching battles... well at least that shows you aren't directly a danger to society...
2: Guns don't have nearly the same street value, smuggling 2 kg of drugs will pay a ton more than a pistol and some rounds. Also the drugs are easier to hide since metal detectors cant find them and are a lot less bulky. Risk vs reward, even the criminals rather get more money than less.
This isn't the way the drug trade words. The drug trade operates under a hierarchy that goes from big buyer to small buyer.
People are still smugging hundreds of tons of drugs into the country despite the prohibition laws. Do you think they are doing this 2 kg at a time? Take a look at this:
You don't think this kind of transportation is common place? It apparently isn't as difficult to transport large sums of products into a country where they are illegal as you seem to believe. Where do you think they hid the 40,000 pounds of cocaine? In the trunk of a car? Do you not think that if they didn't get tipped off and found out that it wouldn't have found its way off the boat?
These people are professionals. If people want something and will pay money for it, there will always be people to provide it for them. This applies to everything. Drugs, guns, sex, snuff, anything. Prohibition doesn't work simply because it doesn't cease the existence of whatever it is that these people want. You need to work within the structure of the system as things are existing, not within the framework of an idealistic dream. The actions of a populace are cultural, fueled by the thoughts and views fed to them by those giving them information.
The crime in the US is a result of it's society, not because of the products sold within it.
On December 09 2007 18:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
So is the logic that things should be illegal because some people start off by doing legal things with an eventual malicious intent.
Logic is that something which causes harm but no benefits have no reason to be legal.
In this case, lax gun laws allow the US criminals to have a steady and easy income of firearms. Now it also allows the general population to have firearms, however in a gunfight the criminal always gets the element of surprise. If you have a concealed gun on you, and someone points a gun on you, you cant do shit really while instead if he had a knife you can always run no matter if you are armed or not, guns give a lot more advantage to criminals than to honest people.
On December 09 2007 18:16 Mayson wrote: The possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant to gun control.
Then rape or knives aren't either, Doctor Genius.
Because your average criminal has the monetary means to obtain nuclear weapons, right? Most countries can't afford it. Don't be an idiot.
In western europe your average criminal can't even afford a gun.
So hunting and shooting for sport should be illegal as well?
The issue doesn't come from the product being present. The issue comes from the lack of governmental responsibility in cracking down on things that fuel criminals. As has already been stated, most guns come from legal means as a result of corrupt business owners. Regular checks on firearm dealerships and very acute punishments for any infraction would reduce the illegal circulation of guns by a huge percentage. A corrupt business owner dealing guns out his back door isn't hard to catch if you're willing to put the resources into doing it.
Once legitimate firearms dealers know they are being checked multiple times a year at random and face life imprisonment if they are found now following the rules and regulations set out by their FFL you'll find the black market's ability to acquire guns goes down by a significant margin.
That's nice. There is a huge difference between "can't afford a gun" and "can't afford a nuclear weapon".
On December 09 2007 18:16 Mayson wrote: The possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant to gun control.
Then rape or knives aren't either, Doctor Genius.
Because your average criminal has the monetary means to obtain nuclear weapons, right? Most countries can't afford it. Don't be an idiot.
how can you even discount super criminals WTF osama bin laden anyone? hitler? they would rape and murder a nuclear weaponless country if they had nuclear weapons so why shouldn't these examples count
Osama had nuclear weapons? Source?
Hitler ran a country. Having the economic power of a nation isn't something most criminals have at their disposal.
On December 09 2007 14:05 SwedishHero wrote: Banga, what I forgot to say was that those situations where a gun only would save you are in the stage where all guns havent bin taken care of yet. After a couple of years(let it be 10 years) that will not be the issue anymore.
and its not only on principle. lets say i had that gun and I was a criminal, should you then have the right to have a bazooka cause it beats the gun, but then bazookas would be allowed and the criminal would have it, should you then be allowed to have a tank that you role in and take that punk bazooka dude out, hah, that was abit exagarated. but what I want to say is that it will escalade..and just bigger, and more casualties. say you met that criminal in the park one day(a thief or somethinh, little G) and guns were banned in the states since 10 years back, he would try to rob you bye maybe punching you, you would punch back, he maby runs, he maby knocks you out or vice-versa , whatever no one has to die.
Second of all, if we shouldn't allow guns because then we'll need to allow bazookas... then we shouldn't allow bats because then we need to allow swords. And we shouldn't allow knives, because then we'll need to allow bats. It's a spectrum and where to draw the line is quite subjective. Your decision to draw the line just below guns is not so obvious and intuitive as you are making it sound. I also am surprised you think if guns are actually out of the picture that means all muggings will become nonlethal punching battles... well at least that shows you aren't directly a danger to society...
2: Guns don't have nearly the same street value, smuggling 2 kg of drugs will pay a ton more than a pistol and some rounds. Also the drugs are easier to hide since metal detectors cant find them and are a lot less bulky. Risk vs reward, even the criminals rather get more money than less.
This isn't the way the drug trade words. The drug trade operates under a hierarchy that goes from big buyer to small buyer.
People are still smugging hundreds of tons of drugs into the country despite the prohibition laws. Do you think they are doing this 2 kg at a time? Take a look at this:
You don't think this kind of transportation is common place? It apparently isn't as difficult to transport large sums of products into a country where they are illegal as you seem to believe. Where do you think they hid the 40,000 pounds of cocaine? In the trunk of a car? Do you not think that if they didn't get tipped off and found out that it wouldn't have found its way off the boat?
These people are professionals. If people want something and will pay money for it, there will always be people to provide it for them. This applies to everything. Drugs, guns, sex, snuff, anything. Prohibition doesn't work simply because it doesn't cease the existence of whatever it is that these people want. You need to work within the structure of the system as things are existing, not within the framework of an idealistic dream. The actions of a populace are cultural, fueled by the thoughts and views fed to them by those giving them information.
The crime in the US is a result of it's society, not because of the products sold within it.
However the drugs become extremely expensive due to this, saying that guns would still be cheap eventhough we just removed 90% of the market source is kinda dumb.
Guns will get in, yes, but they will also become much much more expensive than before. If US allowed people to grow their own drugs, the drugs would be not much more expensive than other vegetables, but now they cost extreme sums due to being illegal.
Now since the guns are so darn expensive, to you think a mugger could get one? Or these emo kids wanting to kill their peers?
Drugs are NOT expensive. Ironically, since the War on Drugs began, the quality of drugs has gone up and the cost of drugs has gone down.
In fact, accounting for increase in quality, inflation and constantly lowering drug prices, there is a 600% decrease in cost since the War on Drugs began. Extreme sums indeed.
On December 09 2007 18:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
So is the logic that things should be illegal because some people start off by doing legal things with an eventual malicious intent.
For fuck's sake
Read my fucking post, I take all context of my opinions on gun control out of it. All I'm doing is showing Mayson how retarded his arguments are, don't come over the top trying to argue with me about this bullshit.
I don't give a shit about gun control, but Mayson's posts are horrible. He can support whichever side of the argument he chooses, but if he's going to voice his opinions here he'd sure as fuck better have something legitimate to back himself up, instead of wildly brandishing his ignorance of the world around him.
What the fuck is the point in trying to argue with me about an issue i explicitly state I don't care to discuss? I came in here speaking strictly about the quality of someone's posting, prompted by numerous requests that I check out how bad the posts are.
If you don't care to discuss it then stay out of the thread.
And he has supported himself, with links, and for the most part has conducted himself well despite unfair treatment.
If you know anything about my history on this forum you know I am always quick to bash anybody being an ignorant fuckwit who has no place in a intellectual debate.
This is not one of those cases. Back off. You're being a twat. Leave him be. Don't march into a thread and troll somebody, especially when it's all based on a bunch of fallacies.
It's really a shame people don't understand simple logic.
Take anything. Let's take teddy bears.
Flood the market with teddy bears. Everyone buys them; lots of people own them, including criminals. Now, ban them. Citizens don't want to give them up, but they don't want to become a criminal, so they give in. The criminals don't care, haven't cared, and don't give them up.
Now the only people with teddy bears are the criminals.
This is what the whole discussion boils down to. Pro gun law people say that not every criminal (car thiefs, robbers) would still keep their teddy bears if the police were doing razzias and the punishment of getting caught with a teddy bear was extremely strict. Of course the hardcore criminals wouldn't care about the new law because their crimes would already give them much more penalty compared to getting caught with a teddy bear which wasn't accounted for. And no, I don't think you can claim that every criminal is the same and every one of them would still keep their teddy bears.
The whole purpose of gun laws is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. If it's extremely expensive and troublesome to get a teddy bear, would you still get one even if you could rob the store with a fake teddy bear instead or a knife(not as powerful as a teddy bear, but if the guys at the store don't have teddy bears either you won't need one)?
There will always be teddy bears in circulation, but they would be much harder to get and much more expensive. Something only the hardcore criminals would go through to get, and they aren't the guys who commits the small crimes or goes crazy-shooting in a crowded area.
I think that is the point of most pro-gun law people.The anti-gun law people doesn't believe that the amount of guns in circulation would go down, only that the regular citizens would lose their guns while every criminal would still have theirs. Since most of the pro-gun law people here aren't living in the US we might be very naive and think that the situation could be the same as in Europe. Perhaps even the small criminals who only hijack cars would still keep their guns even if they would get 10 years prison for doing so. Perhaps they would still use their guns when doing the crime even if it wasn't needed since the guy they rob doesn't have a gun either, even if it would mean they would get double jail sentence.
It's easy to say that guns should be forbidden when you are sitting at your home in Europe and the bank robbers use toy guns and starting guns. We might have had a different view if you knew your neighbor was a criminal and both of you had guns. If you suddenly had to hand in your gun but you doubted that your neighbor would, and you doubted that the police would find his gun, then I can see why you wouldn't want to do it.
Since I live in Europe and I can see that gun regulations actually do work I think it would work in the US too, just the transition could be extremely hard. And no, it doesn't work with gun laws in just one state because smuggling guns from one state to another is way easier than smuggling from one country to another. ------------ Some arguments for still having "a gun for every citizen":
The system works decent already and it would just be too troublesome to try to remove all guns from criminals and it would just mean the regular citizens would be left unprotected.
It would be way easier for a foreign country to invade the US if there weren't a defending guy with a gun in every house.
People joining the army would possibly have less experience with guns and need more gun handling and aim practice.
People who like to collect guns or shoot at a target wouldn't be hindered by strict gun regulations
If you don't trust the police protection you would feel safer if you were allowed to defend yourself with something which the criminals fear.
If you ban guns, a lot of people would lose their jobs, both manufacturers and suppliers.
just eliminate the problem,,,"GUNS" i dont think that kid can use a knife to kill 10 people in a mall..Gun is a dangerous weapon. unless you want every student and every kid to bring a GUN to school to be fair..just like in afghanistan..every little kid are trained to used a gun to protect themselves from USA or Soviets. go figure what the problem is.. or else you guys in the US gonna live up with some snipers in the city or shootings in schools or malls every fucking year. god bless.
On December 09 2007 23:28 Mergesort wrote: It would be way easier for a foreign country to invade the US if there weren't a defending guy with a gun in every house.
..The whole purpose of gun laws is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation..
I think this is an important contrast. People (Law abiding citizens), still want a gun in the house to
A) Defend their property and their lives (if threatened).
B) Prevent oppression from a tyrannical state.
"A" is understandable, but "B" is something not many people can appreciate. "A" is to protect you and your family from criminals, and "B" is to protect you from government.
So while it may be your opinion that guns have no place in society, it is still fair to accept that many people want guns, for the above reasons.
On December 09 2007 07:32 qgart wrote: So I come back home and notice that Mayson is still trolling here.
Perceptual distortion and selective attention.
You have made 116 posts in the last week, at least 100 posts in this thread, which makes you very noticeable, certainly more than any other posters here.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: If you support the ban of the effective means by which one may defend themselves, then you effectively support the lack of resistance when one's life is threatened.
Yes, and all countries where firearms are banned are in fact supporting criminals? All pro-gun ppl are saying for example "VT students would have been safe if they were allowed to carry guns", but they all fail to mention that Cho got his gun legally. If you want to prevent a chain reaction, you eliminate the step that started it.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: My insults have been in my own defense; I have never cast the first stone.
I have been repeatedly insulted, berated, and belittled by numerous posters in this thread, yet you call me out on the few times I've done so in my own defense.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, read the first sentence of the very first post you made in this thread. How is this "self-defense"? If I was talking with my friend in the bus and someone comes up to me and shouts "baaaaaaaaa goes the sheep", I would probably tell him to GTFO. You are not a martyr, you are a liar.
Pretty much all the rest of you gigantic post simply discards previous legitimate counter arguments that ppl have given you.
You are probably hoping that someone new to this thread would just come here, see how much you wrote, not even read it, and go "wow, this guy MUST know what he is talking about since he wrote so much". But anyone who followed this thread with fair amount of attention would notice that most your posts are empty shells.
On December 09 2007 18:57 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i mean look at this - "The problem is that guns are available to criminals. The problem is not that guns are available to law-abiding citizens. Law-abiding citizens aren't going out, buying guns, and then killing people en masse. Criminals are the ones raping, murdering, and robbing people; not citizens."
you think guns are "only bad in the hands of criminals"
there are already background checks that precede gun purchases. did it not occur to you that if someone has a clean background check they may still have intent to use the thing unlawfully? an 18 year old nerd isnt going to have anything on his background check that would indicate he's going to shoot up a bunch of people, so he can buy a gun. by all accounts he's a law-abiding citizen until he kills some people, but he still does kill people. there is absolutely no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never done anything criminal. there's no way to brand someone a criminal if they've never gotten caught, either.
"You know what I'd like to do? I'd like the have the FFLs of corrupt dealers revoked, with those licensees charged on federal arms trafficking charges."
How does that stop someone with a clean record but an intent to murder people from buying a gun?
dont look at this post in regards to whether or not you support gun control; i honestly don't give a shit. look at it as the presentation of what you believe to be a solid argument. its really really dumb
Is this where I point out the irony that a moderator is the one joining in with the flaming now?
I get what you mean about a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. Trust me; I get it. The problem with that is this: you can put laws in place that a law-abiding citizen will follow (by definition they follow laws to begin with), and that will prevent them from obtaining a gun.
This doesn't prevent the crime. When cool-down periods were implemented, "rage kills" where a seemingly normal, law-abiding citizen went out, bought a gun, went home, and shot his/her spouse, friend, etc., went down. The murder rate did not change at all.
All that cool-down period did was change the method with which a murder was committed. The gun control laws, once again, did not change crime rates for the better, or prevent loss of life.
The fact that a gun wasn't used is not a victory for gun control.
There are 1,500,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) every year according to the Department of Justice's research study, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms."
According to the FBI, there were 17,034 murders in the US during the year of 2006. According to the NSC, your odds of dying to a firearm are 1 in 324, while your odds of dying to a sharp object are 1 in 1,813.
Given that, how many of those 17,034 murders do you think were committed with a firearm? And of those murders committed with firearms, how many of them do you think were committed by a law-abiding civilian that just one went out, bought a gun, and killed someone?
I'm sorry, Steven, but the gun itself is not the problem. It never has been. The media just constantly bombards people with sensational stories about people being injured, murdered, raped, and robbed.
Every time a firearm is used legally in self-defense, it never makes the news. Hell, anything that shows the obvious flaws with gun control never makes the news.
Law-abiding citizens have never been the problem in society. Criminals are the problem. Crime is a society problem, not a gun problem.
I'm sure you'll disagree, so think about it: before firearms existed, the only weapons really available were bladed and blunt. Maybe projectile weapons, like thrown rocks or bow/arrows were used.
Did crime exist? Absolutely.
When guns came along, crime didn't come with it. Crime was already there.
My point is, firearms, in the wrong hands, is scary. It scares the hell out of me. But that's not the problem. A knife, bomb, or pipe in the same hands still scares me--just not in the same way.
There are ways to prevent criminals from obtaining guns originally intended for the legal market without disrupting law-abiding citizens. But gun control doesn't believe that. They want you to believe that guns are the reason people die--not people killing other people with or without the aid of a firearm.
"Guns don't kill people--people kill people." Cliche, but true.
I absolutely cannot support the ban or restriction of legal sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens when (a) those legally-obtaining their firearms are rarely ever involved in any criminal activity. The idea that (b) "well-adjusted" people can one day "snap" and go kill someone is not supported by any psychologist or psychiatrist. Whenever someone "snaps," they always had a criminal record, or series of warning signs.
The topic of suicide always comes up. Gun control wants me to believe that if someone wants to kill themselves, but doesn't have a gun, that they can't do it. That makes sense. That's why people kill themselves in other ways. A gun is just more effective.
Edit: qgart, what "makes sense" in your head does not hold up on paper.
Cho is the only criminal in the public eye that actually went out of his way to avoid criminal activity to obtain a firearm.
Not every criminal does that. Actually, the incident at VT is not representative of the norm at all.
Nineteen of the 32 dead at VT were of age to carry a concealed weapon. Cho shot them all at point blank while completely exposed. If even one of those 19 had been carrying legally, VT would have been the massacre of 10, 20 maybe, instead of 32.
Edit: FakeSteve, I've conducted myself relatively well compared to those who have been constantly insulting me (yourself included). You had nothing to say to them, so don't start with me.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: About time.
Everything I posted in my last post was posted before. I will must give you credit for addressing some of my argument, but you have ignored the core. Don't worry I will make what I want you to address explicit.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: (Refering to gun control as a means of education) No, they don't. They serve as restrictions.
Firstly, it is naive not admit that gun control and the gun control debate serve as a means of education. How many people have you personally taught something here with your statistics and points? I personally learned about gun control in high school and again in college. Do we not have two clear examples of education here? People ARE educated thanks to gun control and the gun control debate. Just admit this so we don't have to post anything else.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: Magazine capacity limits don't keep people alive; aggressively eliminating the threat does.
You don't know this. I would argue both, magazine limits and aggressively eliminating the threat, have the potential to keep people alive. I think you can admit to this. I mean even if the person is reloading. Say they have a clip belt. The clip belt only has so many clips. If an asshole has 50 less bullets does this not have the potential to save some lives? It does. Admit it.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote:Yes, magazine capacity limits on the federal lawbooks teaches children about morals.
These are part of the gun control debate. These are ideas people learn about. They are a means of education. I personally learned about them and the moral positions behind these laws, I was educated. That's one example. I could give you others.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: Do you really think I'm going to believe that gun laws are supposed to educate the entire civilian population of morals?
Certainly not the entire population at once, but some of it at any given time and increasingly more of it. You live in the USA. Certainly the gun control debate has educated you on gun control morals. I mean look at you. You are exceptionally well versed on anti gun control statistics and you cite "the right to protect oneself" (notice this is a moral point) repeatedly. Just admit it. Gun control serves to educate people about moral arguements.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: You know what I call education? Mandatory safety classes taught by certified NRA instructors.
A legitimate point.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: Personally, I advocate the United States moving away from gun ownership. I've posted various things concerning the lingering presence of guns in the U.S. We have a lot of land for hunting, the presence of "the right to bear arms" in our constitution (which is a peculiarity among constitutions) etc... Whatever the reason the United States, as a culture, has stayed with personal fire arms in unimportant. I want to talk about another culture's view on guns, specifically Europe. European countries have moved away from guns and have reduced crime rates and murder rates to show for it. Culturally, Europeans denounce gun ownership and use as unnecessary. The result of these grounded norms is an environment where gun ownership is so taboo; people don't have a purpose for guns. Even criminals follow suit. The penalties for owning a gun are so harsh; it's not worth even risking. Murder rates are reduced in Europe as a result.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: This has nothing to do with gun control; this is just simply you trying to force your own views on others.
I make legitimate point about the influence of culture on crime and gun use, yet you repeated fail to acknowledge any of these points. You dismiss them as "my agenda." I want you to counter this argument once instead of dismissing it. See the European example is your biggest obstacle in the gun control debate. Their culture has produced an environment where gun use is unthinkable and they have lower crime rates/murder rates to show for it. What I advocate is a culture that moves toward this. I have stated repeatedly this shift will be gradual and gun control is part of this shift.
On December 09 2007 15:34 aRod wrote: This is the type of attitude I would like to see develop in, not just the United States, but worldwide. The potential effects of an anti-gun culture are clear. Thus I advocate gun control as a means of education and eventual cultural drift. The United States is not an ethnically homogeneous culture, but we accept certain norms nationally. We have accepted the women’s right to vote, the premise slavery is wrong etc... The rise of gun control in the United States is a sign of cultural drift. I advocate this drift and the means to support it.
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote: It's a utopian ideal to long for a society devoid of violence.
Wake up.
Again you DISMISS my points about cultural drift. I did not mention a society devoid of violence. I mentioned a society shifting towards the belief that gun use is taboo. People link guns with violence. By denouncing gun use we collectively denounce violence and murder. This approach has strong examples to support it. For examples read about the U.K. where the police don't carry guns because they are unnecessary. Or read about the Swiss, Dutch, etc.
Now, in my past post, you've said things similar to "aRod ignores the American gun control debate," or something like "This has nothing to do with gun control aRod." But my points directly address the impact on gun control in America. So please try to acknowledge legitimate points instead of just ranting your pro gun rhetoric.
Once again, there is nothing in what you said to fakesteve that has not already been addressed by previous posters. You simply discarded their arguments; in fact, I don't even know if you actually read what other ppl are posting. I'm done playing this game of "running around in circles" with you. But some of the things you say are just so dumb I just can't help to answer them:
On December 10 2007 03:25 Mayson wrote:
Nineteen of the 32 dead at VT were of age to carry a concealed weapon. Cho shot them all at point blank while completely exposed. If even one of those 19 had been carrying legally, VT would have been the massacre of 10, 20 maybe, instead of 32.
A massacre of 10, 20 maybe a LITTLE better than 32. But try a massacre of ZERO if he would not have been able to get a hold of a gun. And should I mention how Robert Hawkins got his AK-47? Just because you are a law-abiding citizen does not mean that everyone of your family is also one you know? And it becomes easy for a criminal to just steal a legally owned gun when he visits his law-abiding uncle.
On December 10 2007 03:25 Mayson wrote: Edit: FakeSteve, I've conducted myself relatively well compared to those who have been constantly insulting me (yourself included). You had nothing to say to them, so don't start with me when it's obvious you just disagree.
Or you could just be an officious moderator and ban me. You're the only one in 28 pages that's had a problem with my posts, which, by the way, have been using logic and sources to support them.
fakesteve is not even close to being the only one who has a problem with your posts. You pissed off a lot of ppl by saying how "the typical canadian supports murder and rape" and calling other ppl a sheep right off the bat.
Oh and your sources? Typing "flaws of gun-control" in google will not yield unbiased results. In fact, websites in general do not constitute reliable sources, neither are publications dating from 1985.
OK guys this post is getting out of hand. Gun control isn't even a serious issue.. I personally don't give a shit. Sure, I feel if guns were outlawed the US might become a little safer, but it honestly isn't going to make much of a difference. The guy Freak laid it out well... the crime in the U.S. is a result of the society..not the products sold within it.
A couple examples.. Barely any people in England own guns and violent crimes are much lower than in the US and although this suggests a correlation, the fact is crime in England was low even when the percentage of gun ownership was much higher.
Hell, Switzerland's crime rate is very low and it's common for families in Switzerland to keep automatic weapons in their house. The same thing goes for many other European countries. I also feel that you could load up a country like Japan with guns but the crime rate would still remain ridicoulously low. The sad fact is, it's American society which makes it's citizens so violent... not the fact that guns are legal... Although the legality of guns may have some impact... it's not enough of an impact for it to be a significant issue.. this is my opinon and this is why I don't give a shit. This is also why it's not really a top political issue. Now please let's put this issue to rest and stop the flaming.
Now let's get back to the real topic of this post and talk about what a piece of shit this Robert Hawkins kid was. This is an actual quote from his suicide letter:
"Please understand that I just don't want to be a burden on the ones that I care for my entire life, I just want to take a few pieces of shit with me"
Then he goes on to shoot a bunch of innocent people, that he has labeled "pieces of shit" because they have a better life than him. It makes me so god damn mad. Then in the rest of his letter he writes about how much he loves his family. He couldn't see that the people he was killing also had families? I mean if your life sucks and you want to take yourself out.. go right ahead. I actually might of felt sorry for him if he just killed himself. He wanted everyone to feel sorry for him, but then he goes and kills 8 innocent people because he wants fame or something. What a fucking piece of shit this kid is seriously. Just fucking kill yourself and get it over with.. don't take out other people that are just trying to live their lives you fucking dumb fuck. Robert Hawkins.. burn in hell..
Yes, the debate itself serves as a sort of education. But how many anti-gun people learned something new, up to and including that some of the things they are taught by politicians and the media is not accurate for the sake of votes and sensationalism?
Not many. I've been talking to a wall for 28 pages.
Yes, if one cannot carry a larger capacity of total rounds of ammunition due to magazine restrictions, his/her's effective rate of lethality is reduced.
However:
- If the killer has broken the law to obtain a firearm capable of greater levels of individual harm than hunting rifles and shotguns, why are we supposed to assume he/she will follow the law and only use ban-legal capacity magazines?
- Let's assume the killer uses only legal items to commit crimes (rarest of all cases). The killer could just legally buy pre-ban magazines.
- 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.
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.
It's like how I think anyone who fits the legal criteria should learn to use a firearm, but that's not what gun control is about, whether it's firearms-related or otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It 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.
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.
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 04:14 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.
It 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
I don't see a strong connection between ignoring arguments/statistics and trolling. I do however see a strong connection between making a post with the sole intention of calling someone a 'shit' and trolling. Even if your excuse is that they are a troll, it's still trolling ._.
I can take the insult. I've taken numerous before I hit my limit and returned one or two.
You don't care about my sources, obviously. I've responded to argument citing sources (see: Servolisk's posts). Many other people have presented little more than their own arguments and opinions. (There's nothing wrong with presenting your own, original opinions, but when someone states an opinion as if it's fact without proper sources to support said opinion, it makes it difficult to respect it.) State opinions as opinions. Back up your opinions with sources, where applicable and appropriate.
I've done two things conducive to trolling: (1) my signature, which has since been removed, and (2) my post about what gun control indirectly supports. Both were intended to be "controversial;" neither brought anything of any intellectual capacity to the proverbial table. For that I apologize. I'm imperfect like anyone else here.
Two things out of 100 or more posts in a single thread isn't that bad, especially when you take into account the level of flaming I've received from numerous posters.
On December 10 2007 06:11 LostDevil wrote: I skimmed through a couple of your references and they don't disprove my statements. Reading comprehension FTW.
State your statements briefly. I'll do it for you. (Or maybe I misunderstood something.) No, I'm not going back to sift through essays of posts. Just give me a brief overview, if you'd be so kind.
How does carrying a weapon prevent someone from walking into an open dining hall and letting loose with an AK-47 / grenades?
Normal citizens are not trained to fire while being shot at. If gun ownership drastically increases don't you think the criminals will adapt?
Guns are being produced for normal people to own for safety, yet too many are being produced / they are poorly regulated so they reach the black market and criminals (do we both agree here?). How would removing guns completely not lower crime if the above statements were true. If you use the "well EVERY felon will still be able to get their weapons" approach in this case, please provide evidence that is cited because I don't see how criminals won't be left for fewer weapons on the black market at their disposal.
I loved how you debunked statistics of US crimes and murders by just saying USA is different and can't be compared because of that.
Or when you completely disregard other nations success with strict gun control, and that you won't even try to look for possibilities of achieving the same goal in the future, that makes you a extremely childish person with zero intellectual credibility in my book.
And please make shorter posts, when you make a point you write a fucking article of vague bullshit around it.
"Normal citizens are not trained to fire while being shot at. If gun ownership drastically increases don't you think the criminals will adapt?"
He's suggested that the ones permitted to own and carry guns take classes and be trained to do so.
"Guns are being produced for normal people to own for safety, yet too many are being produced / they are poorly regulated so they reach the black market and criminals"
He has suggested that we more actively enforce the regulations and restrictions already present via random checks of firearms dealers and harsh punishments for those that break these laws. Cracking down on legal dealerships selling firearms illegally wouldn't be terribly difficult to do and accounts for 85-90% of all illegal firearms. Attack this and you go a very long way to stopping the problem.
On December 10 2007 06:22 MarklarMarklar wrote: I loved how you debunked statistics of US crimes and murders by just saying USA is different and can't be compared because of that.
Or when you completely disregard other nations success with strict gun control, and that you won't even try to look for possibilities of achieving the same goal in the future, that makes you a extremely childish person with zero intellectual credibility in my book.
And please make shorter posts, when you make a point you write a fucking article of vague bullshit around it.
I've attempted to explain why comparing two countries is intellectual fraud. I hope to have cite an admittedly biased source, but I've never seen anything explain it as well as this: http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/murder.txt
It briefly explains why you can't derive conclusions when there are other variables present not account for. When you're doing research, your ultimate goal is to prove that your independent variable had, or did not have a statistically-significant effect on the dependent variable.
This is getting quite heavily into academia, which deals directly with the validity of the arguments comparing two differing countries.
Edit: It's not fair of me to suggest you should understand all of that. The statistical analysis of pages of data is doctoral level work, and none of us have doctorates. I haven't even finished my bachelor's yet, and am still struggling with reading research reports.
On December 10 2007 06:22 MarklarMarklar wrote: I loved how you debunked statistics of US crimes and murders by just saying USA is different and can't be compared because of that.
Or when you completely disregard other nations success with strict gun control, and that you won't even try to look for possibilities of achieving the same goal in the future, that makes you a extremely childish person with zero intellectual credibility in my book.
And please make shorter posts, when you make a point you write a fucking article of vague bullshit around it.
Comparing entirely different cultures isn't a very good way to go about discussing something.
Go to a few countries in Europe. Go to the US. Go to Canada. Go to a Japan or Korea. Go to Singapore. Go to Australia.
Look at how different the people are. Look at how radically different the cultures are. What's considered good and bad, right or wrong, normal or abnormal. Look at the media, the entertainment, what the kids do for fun. What do people talk about? How do they behave? Most cultures are fairly unique in these things and many others.
Do you honestly believe you can directly compare two entirely different populations?
And that's just the simple part. Then we have to get into distribution of people, wealth classes, where they're located, jobs availability, education, what levels of education are available to what classes and/or groups. And that's just skimming the surface. It's not as simple as merely "Well look at Europe." There are entire faculties studying these topics. You think they are so easily answered? Are thousands of scientists wasting their effort studying how cultures, societies, politics and how everybody in the world works? Is it really as simple as "look at Europe, do that."
On December 10 2007 06:27 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: "Normal citizens are not trained to fire while being shot at. If gun ownership drastically increases don't you think the criminals will adapt?"
He's suggested that the ones permitted to own and carry guns take classes and be trained to do so.
"Guns are being produced for normal people to own for safety, yet too many are being produced / they are poorly regulated so they reach the black market and criminals"
He has suggested that we more actively enforce the regulations and restrictions already present via random checks of firearms dealers and harsh punishments for those that break these laws. Cracking down on legal dealerships selling firearms illegally wouldn't be terribly difficult to do and accounts for 85-90% of all illegal firearms. Attack this and you go a very long way to stopping the problem.
Classes don't teach you how to shoot while being fired at. Ask any soldier that has fought in combat. It is completely different when someone is firing at you. You aren't standing there with earmuffs on trying to hit a stationary object.
Who is to say that someone who wants to commit premeditated crimes won't go through the procedures of legally purchasing a gun under further regulations?
The United States already has too many problems with just adding more laws to an already terrible system to try and improve things instead of just tearing the system down and doing away with it when it doesn't work. Your proposition of regulating gun dealerships is an example of this. It won't work as well as you think as long as guns are produced in the quantity they are. You would need to directly regulate production, which is against everything "Americans" stand for in the free market economy. The logical thing is to do away with the system all together and just regulate guns by not allowing anyone to have one. But this isn't good for business and it angers Americans because it removes rights and they'll soon think the government is like communist russia.
Well at first I thought Mayson was a troll just from a couple random posts in this thread that I read of his. But I went and read some of his older posts in other threads and he seems normal. If I had to give you one piece of arguing advice though Mayson: stop with the really stupid comparisons.
I'm not going to give an opinion on this matter but you should just realize that a real lot of the opinion you hold on topics such as this one is just from where you live/grew up and who your parents are. Especially because I'm guessing you are like ~16-18, just a guess. So maybe stop taking it so seriously.
Anyway, have fun. I wonder if anyone has actually read this whole shitheap of a thread (not a personal attack on you Mayson, I thought the thread was bad before you even arrived).
On December 10 2007 06:27 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: "Normal citizens are not trained to fire while being shot at. If gun ownership drastically increases don't you think the criminals will adapt?"
He's suggested that the ones permitted to own and carry guns take classes and be trained to do so.
"Guns are being produced for normal people to own for safety, yet too many are being produced / they are poorly regulated so they reach the black market and criminals"
He has suggested that we more actively enforce the regulations and restrictions already present via random checks of firearms dealers and harsh punishments for those that break these laws. Cracking down on legal dealerships selling firearms illegally wouldn't be terribly difficult to do and accounts for 85-90% of all illegal firearms. Attack this and you go a very long way to stopping the problem.
Classes don't teach you how to shoot while being fired at. Ask any soldier that has fought in combat. It is completely different when someone is firing at you. You aren't standing there with earmuffs on trying to hit a stationary object.
Who is to say that someone who wants to commit premeditated crimes won't go through the procedures of legally purchasing a gun under further regulations?
The United States already has too many problems with just adding more laws to an already terrible system to try and improve things instead of just tearing the system down and doing away with it when it doesn't work. Your proposition of regulating gun dealerships is an example of this. It won't work as well as you think as long as guns are produced in the quantity they are. You would need to directly regulate production, which is against everything "Americans" stand for in the free market economy. The logical thing is to do away with the system all together and just regulate guns by not allowing anyone to have one. But this isn't good for business and it angers Americans because it removes rights and they'll soon think the government is like communist russia.
So now it doesn't matter that they can take training courses in order to better prepare themselves in the event of a situation occurring. They now must have direct situational experience or it's no good. I suppose we shouldn't train our military either, right? How about our police force? I mean, it's not going to prepare them for the real thing anyway, so why bother at all?
Most murders are committed by lower class people with criminal records. I imagine any sane law maker would make it difficult for people with criminal records to gain the proper permits in order to legally obtain the firearm. If there is the occasional very very rare case of somebody who passes the background check, goes through several weeks of courses, purchases a lower class firearm, and commits a murder, it'd be such a rarity that it's negligible. A system doesn't work simply because 1 in a million are willing to screw with it. By that same logic we shouldn't have a police force because some cops abuse it to enter the drug trade.
Tearing down systems and doing away with it doesn't work in a country, especially not a democratic one of some 350+ million.
And why won't it work? What does quantity have to do with anything if gun dealerships are being checked at random several times a year and any infractions involving the illegal sale of firearms results in a 10 year mandatory jail sentence with no chance of parole. You don't think that's going to help stop a corrupt firearms dealer from selling out his back door? His purchasing has a paper trail. All sales have a paper trail. Those that do not are assumed illegal unless able to be proven otherwise. You attempt to hide something, you get busted. It wouldn't even take a lot of man power to do these checks. These aren't full on police raids. It's paperwork.
Law enforcement undergoes similar training to that of civilians, and there are responsible for public safety as a whole.
The upside to the legal system, as Freak just stated, is that there's a paper. Firearms intended for the legal market that mysteriously are go "missing" or "stolen" must be reported the BATFE. So, the corrupt FFLs sell firearms illegally out the "back door," then report them as stolen to the BATFE.
Then these "stolen" firearms are recovered later on. Some FFLs have staggeringly high theft rates. Red flag anyone?
I agree with LostDevil that adding more laws won't fix anything. We have laws now that haven't really done anything, so I think it's time to aggressively enforce those laws. I want the President of the US to tell the BATFE to hire more field agents, and start cracking down on the illegal sale of firearms from FFLs to criminals. That will reduce the number of firearms going to the illegal market that were originally intended for the legal market.
It will be harder to intercept firearms obtained through completely illegal means, such as smuggling. Undercover agents maybe?
Also, people really need to do away with this idea that Mayson is suggesting that people be allowed to just start carrying guns everywhere. A redneck isn't going to be legally allowed to carry his gun around in his truck to start waving in the face of anybody who angers him while he's driving home.
You would need a permit for fucking everything.
You'd need one to own a gun. There would be different classes of guns with harsher requirements of license acquisition. You'd need one to carry a gun. You'd need one to hunt. You'd need one to go to the shooting range. You'd need one for concealed weapon. You'd need one to pee with a gun. No matter what it is you wanted to do, you'd need a license to do so.
We have different classes of licenses for vehicles because we can't have just anybody driving whatever they want because it's dangerous. You don't think the same stuff is in place for guns?
You make it so that law-abiding citizens with a desire for self defense or recreation be allowed to carry firearms provided that they are willing to go through all the procedures it takes to obtain said firearm. If you aren't willing to be responsible enough to take all these classes, fill out the paperwork, have all your information taken and background checked and pay the fees, you aren't responsible enough to own a gun.
Same shit goes for driving. A car in the hands of somebody who isn't trained to properly and responsibly use it is just as dangerous, if not more so, as a gun.
Though I also think driving restrictions need to be tightened and more heavily regulated. That's another discussion altogether though.
[opinion] Putting small "hurdles" in the way of a law-abiding citizen weeds out the people who don't really want one anyways.
Forcing the education, which primarily stresses safety (safe operation, safe cleaning, safe storage, etc.) of citizens is a good thing. Learning more stuff is never a bad thing. [/opinion]
I am not suggesting people just be allowed to freely walk around armed. Some people have the intelligence of fermented dung. Some people are up to the responsibility. Licensing processes, mandatory class time, etc., places small "hurdles" that weeds out the irresponsible, non-committed people.
Edit: Freak beat me to the driver's licensing process.
Cars, like firearms, are a responsibility. The privilege should be revoked when it's obvious someone is not up to the task.
On December 10 2007 06:58 Mayson wrote: The upside to the legal system, as Freak just stated, is that there's a paper. Firearms intended for the legal market that mysteriously are go "missing" or "stolen" must be reported the BATFE. So, the corrupt FFLs sell firearms illegally out the "back door," then report them as stolen to the BATFE.
Then these "stolen" firearms are recovered later on. Some FFLs have staggeringly high theft rates. Red flag anyone?
Theft must also be reported to the police. Weapons being stolen from a firearms dealer and not being reported within a reasonable time frame would be assumed to have been sold illegally.
A store owner knows about virtually everything in their store. They do inventory checks. If a gun goes missing, they'll know about it.
If I remember correctly, the BATFE mandates that stolen or missing property must be reported withing 48 hours. Those "missing" or "stolen" firearms are typically recovered within two years during an arrest.
I'd also like to say I'm not on either side of this argument.
I have the world I'd like to live in and how I wish things were.
And the structure of the world as it is and how things are and my opinions on what is best for that world. What is ideal to move forward and progress as a society as a whole despite the wrongs of our past. You must operate within a structure and move forward. Tearing down a structure and attempting to rebuild becomes difficult when you realize that your attempts at rebuilding are continually hindered by chaos and anarchy.
On December 10 2007 07:07 Mayson wrote: If I remember correctly, the BATFE mandates that stolen or missing property must be reported withing 48 hours. Those "missing" or "stolen" firearms are typically recovered within two years during an arrest.
I just felt that saying that the regulation would also be in place before somebody mentions a firearm dealer just not reporting stolen firearms. Ignorance as to the location of a stolen firearm doesn't strip you of any responsibility for it.
EDIT: That, and you didn't mention it. Somebody was bound to notice that flaw in the suggested system.
The statistics still show that your nations specific system doesn't result in low crime rates. It's not 'intellectual fraud' or whatever you want to call it, that article is a pile of shit. Statistics still show the result of your nations politics, it can't lie.
I'm just pissed that you don't think it's possible(or want to?) gradually remove guns by improving the social structure of your nation, you got a huge lower class population (from which a majority of crime stems from) and it's shown by statistics that by improving in that area you can lower crimes by alot.
And if you do that you could create more restrictions on guns without a increase in crime as a result. Which should reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and the accepted idea of casual gun ownership can gradually disapear each generation that goes by.
I just think the united states population are ignorant to what works in other nations, and refuses to believe it can work for you. I believe this is a social issue and the gun "culture" you have is only something that has made it even worse.
Marklar, you don't have a Ph.D. As such, if you intend to tell me that an article written by a doctor is a "pile of shit," I except you to have the courtesy to point out why.
He followed every basic rule of what you do when conducting research. Sorry bud, but you're the one that's wrong here.
On December 10 2007 07:15 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Can we just hump each other for the rest of the thread? I'm sure that'll be just as entertaining for everybody.
Socks and holsters optional.
I have a cute little hat, too.
On December 10 2007 07:23 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: So now the issue isn't gun control but politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
Is that what you're saying? Because we've already said that.
No it's gun control AND politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
i'm just trying to argue that it's good to try to remove guns, mayson just fucking dodges this arguement every fucking time.
And i'm trying to argue that both sides are right to a degree, except that mayson is a fucking extremist piece of shit even if he has pointed out certain things that are true
I haven't dodged that argument once. I've been responding to it almost every single time I post.
If you create a law that bans guns, law-abiding citizens will comply. Criminals, by definition, will not.
It's not difficult to understand that a criminal, who is a person who does not comply with laws, will not follow a new law. That's what makes them a criminal in the first place.
It is not realistic to advocate non-violence in a world rampant with violence, whether said violence be committed with a gun, knife, or any object or tool not originally designed to be a weapon.
Mayson you talk about criminals like they are some kind of irrational, psychotic monsters product of some chemical leak in the suburbs which makes them go berserk.
On December 10 2007 08:19 MarklarMarklar wrote: so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low?
Why not? What's wrong with recreation?
On December 10 2007 08:23 IntoTheWow wrote: Mayson you talk about criminals like they are some kind of irrational, psychotic monsters product of some chemical leak in the suburbs which makes them go berserk.
Completely incorrect. Their patterns of behavior are often quite logical. Their patterns of behavior just act outside of, in defiance of, and in spite of applicable laws, thus defining them as "criminals."
On December 10 2007 07:45 MarklarMarklar wrote: No it's gun control AND politics, poverty, lack of social programs and education.
i'm just trying to argue that it's good to try to remove guns, mayson just fucking dodges this arguement every fucking time.
And i'm trying to argue that both sides are right to a degree, except that mayson is a fucking extremist piece of shit even if he has pointed out certain things that are true
If you actually believe that gun control is on par with those issues you need a reality check.
Guns have nothing to do with it. It's the society in which they exist that is the problem.
If me and you sit and have a civilized conversation sitting in 2 chairs on opposite sides of a table and that table has a gun on it, are we thus more likely to act violently towards one another? Does the mere presence of a gun rid us of our civility, morals and courtesy? Does the presence of the gun fundamentally change who we are?
Or will our present beliefs dictate the actions we take and the importance of which that gun being on the table plays? Is it not our upbringing and the world around us that melds who we are and what we do? Are we not beings of free thought? Am I somehow incapable of knowing that killing is wrong now that the gun is present?
I really don't think so. I pity anybody who does.
EDIT: And while you may argue not everybody is going to be as rational as I, that is why there would be programs and such in place. Steps taken as to weed out the irrational and irresponsible for the civilians that are able to obtain licenses in order to own and operate firearm. Nobody is saying EVERYBODY should be able to own a gun. We are saying that those who are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are responsible human beings who understand that a gun is used for recreational use, self defense and defense of those whose lives are in danger should be allowed to have them.
On December 10 2007 07:23 Mayson wrote: If someone comes after me with an AK47 and some grenades, then the fucker is gonna bleed.
Easy there, rpf.
I never said that.
On March 12 2006 17:28 rpf289 wrote: I almost got mugged one night walking to my car on campus, and well, if I'm gonna get mugged, the fucker is gonna bleed. Yeah, I have that mentality of where I refuse to go down without taking someone else down with me.
I don't know if this is true for everyone, but I guarantee you there have been times in my life, where, if I had had a gun in easy reach of me, I would have killed myself, or even someone else. I'm not not crazy, I'm just emotional at times, and yes, I was a very hormonally imbalanced teenager. I have, however, grown out of that. I just can't in good conscience think that guns need to be that easily-accessible. Yes, I know criminals will steal them, but I'm sure it does stop people from doing things they might not normally do. But yes, I agree that far more important than any kind of gun-control laws are societal issues, etc. Reduce crime and you'll reduce the need for gun control; eventually to zero.
I'm sorry to hear that you would have killed yourself, but please understand that was your own problem, and that the presence of a firearm would not have created that problem for you.
No one here is advocating easy access to firearms. I personally advocate the placement of small "hurdles" in the way of law-abiding citizens seeking firearms ownership to weed out the irresponsible, or otherwise not committed people.
I also advocate the enforcement of laws in place, rather than adding new laws to the equation that won't be enforced.
On December 10 2007 08:19 MarklarMarklar wrote: so you believe that people should have guns even if crime is very low?
Why not? What's wrong with recreation?
i'm pretty sure that if people have guns when there aint much crime, the chance of them doing bad is higher than doing good.. just a guess
Why? Because guns make people evil?
No, because people are already evil, how hard is this to figure out? And I'm not being sarcastic, people are stupid jerks and putting guns in their hands doesn't help.
- baseball bats - automobiles - gasoline - kerosene - diesel fuel - black powder - lighters - firecrackers - plastic bags (those warnings must be there for a reason)
If people are inherently stupid, the gun obviously isn't the problem.
Criminals seek firearms to scare, intimidate, and coerce others through the threat of deadly force. Law-abiding citizens do not. That is the distinction.
On December 10 2007 10:01 Mayson wrote: The same argument could be made for:
- baseball bats - automobiles - gasoline - kerosene - diesel fuel - black powder - lighters - firecrackers - plastic bags (those warnings must be there for a reason)
If people are inherently stupid, the gun obviously isn't the problem.
On December 10 2007 10:01 Mayson wrote: The same argument could be made for:
- baseball bats - automobiles - gasoline - kerosene - diesel fuel - black powder - lighters - firecrackers - plastic bags (those warnings must be there for a reason)
If people are inherently stupid, the gun obviously isn't the problem.
Dude, heed my suggestion in my previous post, don't make stupid comparisons. Guns are able to kill people much much easier than any of those. Yeah I guess you could try to somehow drive a car into a crowd of people or whatever, I don't really want to argue the logistics of it, the point is that's not really a good rebuttal.
On December 10 2007 10:02 RowdierBob wrote: Guns are made the kill though, those aren't.
Should we ban swords?
Same argument as above but I don't give a shit if they are banned, they serve no useful purpose but to kill. This is again a really pointless rebuttal though.
[edit] And just to make this clear I am basically just arguing whether guns or any weapons should be banned if for some reason there is little or no crime. I'm not trying to argue the relevant argument.
Well, if I can't make any comparison whatsoever, what's the point of a rebuttal?
The fact remains: firearms have never been the problem with regards to stupid behavior or criminal activity. Either remains, whether firearms are present or otherwise.
It just makes it easier for people to do stupid things is really my only point.
On December 10 2007 10:13 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: They are able to kill people much more easily? You know most of the stuff he listed is explosive, right?
Yeah, I'm aware of that, but as RowdierBob said at least those other things have useful purposes. People aren't suicide bombing here in the United States though, they are shooting up places with guns, so that's kind of a different topic alltogether.
On a side note, I was looking at the NSC's statistics on death, and some people have died to really stupid things. One of the first items is falling, as in tripping.
Why the hell do people keep saying guns are made 'to kill people?' This is not right. The first few guns may have been made as weapons, and many guns today are used as weapons, but they are not solely used for weapons. Furthermore, the percentage of guns that are used as weapons is not high enough to make the other uses of them negligible. Even in liberal places like where I live, there are many very active gun communities. I haven't utilized them lately, but I have in the past, and I have family members who go to shoots etc multiple times per week. If you want to continue arguing, try going to one of their meetings. If you are lucky they will simply point you to the seminar of one of countless people who have been forced to duck under a table and watch walls of people get gunned down because they were legally required to have their gun locked up in their car (the one I'm specifically familiar with saw her parents shot to death, and beforehand she claims the thought had gone through her head: "I could easily take this guy out...")
Not that I'm saying you're 100% wrong, but here's some perspective.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.euronews.net/images_news/0612-usa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/2191/emosoldiernm6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tobonline.com/ArticlePictures/Volume82Pix/Snacks-Doritos.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.1057thepoint.com/Pics/station/thom-jeff/content/no-hands-ron_01.jpg)
that will deter criminals with guns 
![[image loading]](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.80stees.com/images/extraLarge/BOR004_LG1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.snubnose.info/images/AnotherTragicSuccesforGunFreeZones_D175/feelsafe_thumb1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7448/omahalr2.jpg)
