|
On December 09 2007 18:24 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 15:07 micronesia wrote: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:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18294559/
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 20:12 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 20:05 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: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. Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 20:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:On December 09 2007 18:27 BroOd wrote: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 20:12 yubee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 20:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:On December 09 2007 18:27 BroOd wrote: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 20:22 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 18:24 Klockan3 wrote:On December 09 2007 15:07 micronesia wrote: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: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18294559/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.
Thank god for prohibition.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On December 09 2007 20:05 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Have you even read the entire thread?
|
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.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
|
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.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
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.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On December 09 2007 23:28 Mergesort wrote:
..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.
|
Ok well, since Mayson has stopped saying anything logical for a while now, I'm simply going to point out some of the most ridiculous claims of his:
On December 09 2007 16:30 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Try reading this: http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html
It might give you better insight into why an armed society is a safe society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
