|
On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote:
Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so.
I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful.
On February 02 2010 23:52 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 23:49 Zoler wrote:On February 02 2010 23:47 ggrrg wrote:On February 02 2010 23:41 Zoler wrote:On February 02 2010 23:13 theron[wdt] wrote:
no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one.
This is the common fail/misconception for people who is for weapons. So true. I recall that situation in Germany when two students decided to do the same that happened at Columbine. Well, the only difference was that wanted to go for a massacre with two crossbows and two soft air pistols... Examples like that, yep! There are studies and it's a fact that laws against guns makes the killing rates go down. How can you argue against SCIENCE!? conservatives vs science, the way it has always been.
|
On February 03 2010 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture?
The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them.
The general conception at least in Sweden is that guns are generally bad. On the other hand this opinion is backed up by lot's of studies done on the matter while no reasonable study has ever came to the conclusion that guns decreases murder rates.
Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD.
I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this.
|
8748 Posts
You don't have it as bad as the people whose hobbies involve cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and a host of other interesting drugs! The basis for their restricted freedom isn't on the propensity for their hobbies to inflict harm on others, like yours, but rather on the possibility that their hobby stunts their potential to promote good for themselves (and, more weakly, others). Perhaps you should take up their cause first!
|
United States12607 Posts
OP I don't see how you can be outraged that you now need to drive to a store before you can use your deadly weapon that is illegal in many countries.
And it's not just criminals that make gun regulations like this a good idea…do you know how high the cost of accidental shootings (by innocent people) is? You should feel fortunate that the cost (to you) of owning and operating a gun is still as low as it is.
|
On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote:
Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so.
I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful.
If professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons then that wouldn't stop people shooting up schools, it just means they'd always kill the professors first, no one who shoots up a school intends to walk out of there alive.
|
On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote:
AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions.
This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets.
baby back bullshit.
I don't understand you you didn't just stock up before the law went into effect.
I bought 3 cases of 1000rnd .223mm ammo for my beloved HK-SL8, only cost me around $110 USD
Edit: Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where i could get a stock for this baby? I've had it for about 3 years now, and my uncle owns a private shooting range. I only keep it for self defense/range shooting, so i'm looking to get something both to stop my shoulder from being pulverized and to increase my accuracy. Yes i realize this is probably illegal, but honestly i don't care at all.
|
On February 03 2010 00:45 JWD wrote:
And it's not just criminals that make gun regulations like this a good idea…do you know how high the cost of accidental shootings (by innocent people) is?
Word. Can't stress this enough!
|
On February 03 2010 00:46 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote:
AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions.
This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets.
baby back bullshit. I don't understand you you didn't just stock up before the law went into effect. I bought 3 cases of 1000rnd .223mm ammo for my beloved HK-SL8, only cost me around $110 USD
WTF you do with a thousand round of ammo O.o
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote:
Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD.
I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this.
What about driving?
|
On February 03 2010 00:48 FaCE_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:46 ghermination wrote:On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote:
AB 962 went effective today, meaning that purchasing ammunition for any firearm in the state of California has been restricted. The purchase must be made face to face with a store owner, shitcanning all internet purchases. In addition, the customer must submit his thumbprint and state ID, which the owner must hold onto for five years. During this time, any state or federal agency has access to that file with no repercussions.
This is big bullshit because as a gun owner, now i have to go buy the ammunition at two or three times the cost of going to the internet. And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets.
baby back bullshit. I don't understand you you didn't just stock up before the law went into effect. I bought 3 cases of 1000rnd .223mm ammo for my beloved HK-SL8, only cost me around $110 USD WTF you do with a thousand round of ammo O.o
An avid range shooter or hunter can probably go through 1,000 rounds in a couple months, however i'm not that frequent of a shooter. I just like to keep myself prepared for the worst. I mean, what's wrong with keeping a bug-out-bag and gun in the house? How can that harm me?
On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:40 ShadowDrgn wrote:
Honest question: why does everyone from outside the US hate guns so much? Do schools in your country drill into your heads that guns are bad? Do your parents sit you down and scare you straight about guns when you're kids? Do you think that Hollywood movies accurately portray America's gun culture?
The fact is that most Americans don't own guns, have never fired a gun, and will never be threatened by a gun, but it seems like every European and Canadian on the Internet thinks the US is the wild west with shoot-outs on the streets every day. Obviously there are Americans who dislike guns as well, but they never seem so vehemently against them. The general conception at least in Sweden is that guns are generally bad. On the other hand this opinion is backed up by lot's of studies done on the matter while no reasonable study has ever came to the conclusion that guns decreases murder rates. Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD. I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this.
While i'm extremely liberal to the point where i would probably be investigated in Mccarthyist America, My only strong conservative belief is that firearms are a very important item that nearly everyone can own. While obviously they are lethal and anybody with criminal intent can kill you with one, that doesn't mean that they don't server a purpose. If they're (sanely) limited and people are (adequately) screened before recieving them, i think they are of great aid both as a means of self defense (Do people in London ask thieves to kindly go away or something?) and also as use in defense of both their rights and their way of life. (For example, if some time in the future the Galactic Robot Party (GRP) finally succeeds in getting a president elected with it's "Kill all Humans" platform, i will be the only one prepared.)
|
On February 03 2010 00:26 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:13 Severedevil wrote:On February 02 2010 23:51 theron[wdt] wrote:On February 02 2010 23:47 deconduo wrote:
I feel this is a step in the right direction anyway, gun laws in America are ridiculous. They should ban them altogether. The whole 'I need to defend my family' is a bullshit argument as well. Other countries are fine without guns, what makes you so special. as stated before, i shoot competitively and for fun. to me nothing is more stress relieving than hitting a target at 100 yards. I don't give a flying fuck about the "i need to defend my family" bullshit. Thats the reason God gave us the ability use fists. As it turns out, you picked the hobby that's for killing people. That you're not using it to kill people is a good thing, but it doesn't render government interest somehow unreasonable. Archery? Fencing? Martial arts? What do you think these were inspired by?
Bow and sword violence are very minor. Fist violence is a pretty big deal but the weapon is the martial artist's own body.
On February 03 2010 00:48 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote:
Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD.
I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this.
What about driving?
Guns are bad for that.
|
On February 03 2010 00:43 Zoler wrote:
Science says guns give higher killing rates. People getting killed are BAD.
I think that's my logic, and I'd love to see any real arguments against this.
Your argument is solely based on guns (s) being a cause to people dying (p). -- your argument is s causes p (which you value as BAD).
Since we know that there are contexts where guns don't get people killed, we also know that your argument is flawed (there is no direct causality between s and p). There are additional factors that should be taken into account. If you want to stop violence completely, you have to outlaw every factor in the equation and you'd end up with a pretty dull society.
What you refer to as logic is really just presumption.
|
|
|
On February 02 2010 23:18 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 23:13 theron[wdt] wrote:On February 02 2010 23:09 Nytefish wrote:
I didn't think bullets was something you had to do weekly shopping for anyway as a "gun owner". they are if you shoot as much as i do On February 02 2010 23:10 jello_biafra wrote:
Is it possible to order online from another state? no because as soon as i put down california on the shipping address, they back off saying they can't ship here On February 02 2010 23:13 PanoRaMa wrote:On February 02 2010 23:05 theron[wdt] wrote:
And now law abiding citizens are being treated like criminals by requiring a registration in the system in order to just buy bullets. No one's treating you like a criminal. Don't you think this is a fair compromise that will have its benefits in prevention that will ultimately save some lives? no its not. In my opinion, there will always be a way for the common criminal to get his/her bullets, whether it be straw purchase or theft. There shouldn't be consequences for people who have a clean record for somebody who has a shitty one. That's too bad. QQ
Thats what I thought too
|
I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it.
2. Accidents DO happen.
3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
|
On February 03 2010 00:41 Zoler wrote:
So just because some crimes is bound to happen it means you shouldn't try at all?
Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves.
On February 03 2010 00:42 Zoler wrote:
conservatives vs science, the way it has always been.
What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal.
On February 03 2010 00:46 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote:
Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so.
I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful. If professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons then that wouldn't stop people shooting up schools, it just means they'd always kill the professors first, no one who shoots up a school intends to walk out of there alive.
I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest.
|
On February 03 2010 01:23 statix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:41 Zoler wrote:
So just because some crimes is bound to happen it means you shouldn't try at all? Yes, you should try by making it easier for people to defend themselves. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:42 Zoler wrote:
conservatives vs science, the way it has always been. What is this science you keep on chiming in about? Provide me with some credible sources instead of just saying BUT SCEINCE SAYS SO in every other post. How does not defending gun laws make me a conservative? That's like me saying if you like frolicking in fields of flowers and hugging trees you're a liberal. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:46 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 00:40 statix wrote:
Gun laws do nothing but take protection away from those who don't intend to or have the capacity to harm someone. Those who wish to commit crimes and take lives with firearms will always find a means of doing so.
I sure as hell know that if professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons I wouldn't plan on shooting up a school and the school shootings that do and will continue to occur will be a lot less successful. If professors were allowed to carry concealed weapons then that wouldn't stop people shooting up schools, it just means they'd always kill the professors first, no one who shoots up a school intends to walk out of there alive. I don't think there's ever been a school shooting where a kid just jumps up in the middle of class and starts gunning people down. Usually they run around campus shooting everyone who comes across their path. Are you really arguing that allowing professors to be professionally trained in carrying and firing a weapon would not be beneficial in a school shooting scenario? I'd pick a trained adult over an enraged loon any day in a shooting contest.
What if the professor is a trained enraged loon? What if someone steals his weapon?
|
Hopefully all the criminals dont move to Oregon now.
|
Shoot less, play more SC.
|
On February 03 2010 01:22 TS-Rupbar wrote:
I am against guns because owning a gun doesn't protect you at all. It is much more dangerous than not owning one.
1. Other people can steal your gun or kids may find it.
2. Accidents DO happen.
3. If a criminal has a gun, one of you will die. If only the criminal has a gun, he probably won't shoot you.
Guns are bad and shooting guns as a hobby does not justify all the bad stuff they come with.
I can see how the idea of owning a gun would seem preposterous to people who lives in areas where crime is low and there's no real threat to your family or property.However,
1. Any competent gun owner places locks on his triggers and places his firearms in safes; children present or not. This also addresses 2.
3.I happen to live in an area where crime is really high. Home invasions and violent assaults are a common occurrence. You're point in this line is just wrong; in my area anyway. People break into houses, kill everyone, rape the women, and steal your tv. That;s just the kind of shit you hear every other day.
Poverty and drugs make people do crazy things and we have both. It's not all nice grassy parks and shopping centers everywhere in the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
