| Forum Index > General Forum |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
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. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
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. | ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
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 | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
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 | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
Mergesort
Norway18 Posts
"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. | ||
|
Moletrap
United States1297 Posts
On December 06 2007 19:43 Mayson wrote: I'd like to thank the media for giving this fuckbag of an adolescent the drama he was seeking. WIN | ||
|
Lazerflip...
United States13 Posts
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! | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
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. | ||
|
yisun518
Canada480 Posts
On December 07 2007 03:58 Spike wrote: 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? learn 2 reason with analogy. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 07 2007 15:04 Clutch3 wrote: It's quite simple: handguns are banned in Washington D.C.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. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm 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. | ||
|
yisun518
Canada480 Posts
On December 07 2007 23:13 Mayson wrote: 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. Maybe b/c the states had much worse gun laws for too long? Why are you ignoring the facts that others provided from other countries? Just scroll up to the top of this page, and you will find this posted already 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. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 07 2007 14:47 aRod wrote: Magazine restrctions do nothing.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? 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 14:45 Jibba wrote: The National Guard is not a state militia.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: 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. | ||
|
Mergesort
Norway18 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
On December 07 2007 23:15 yisun518 wrote: People can sit here all day and go "It worked in Holland!" all fucking day long, and I won't give a shit.Maybe b/c the states had much worse gun laws for too long? Why are you ignoring the facts that others provided from other countries? Just scroll up to the top of this page, and you will find this posted already 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. 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. | ||
|
yisun518
Canada480 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mayson
312 Posts
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. There you go. Shooting over. | ||
|
yisun518
Canada480 Posts
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. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On December 07 2007 23:13 Mayson wrote: 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. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
OlimoLeague
Fire Grow Cup
OSC
Replay Cast
SOOP
Ryung vs SHIN
Master's Coliseum
Fire Grow Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
