|
United States24493 Posts
On December 10 2007 05:58 MarklarMarklar wrote:
you're the troll, cause you've ignored arguements/statistics during the entire thread
so shut the fuck up you shit According to urban dictionary who seems to have a decent definition at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
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 ._.
|
you're a big boy, cant you take an insult?
And who the fuck gives a shit about your sources? you dont give a shit about those others present to you.
|
I skimmed through a couple of your references and they don't disprove my statements. Reading comprehension FTW.
|
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."
I think not.
|
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.
|
Freak, you explained that quite well--better than I've been trying to do for pages now. 
|
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 06:35 LostDevil wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Or are these gun dealers just that damn good?
|
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.
|
Exactly.
[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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
