Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on March 22, 2009, 03:14:47 am
-
http://jim.com/cowards.htm
keep in mind it is directed at an American conservative audience, so try to ignore the over use of the phrase 'liberal elite'.
-
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
What the christ.
-
I figured--another article claiming the only answer to crime is GUNS GUNS GUNS AND MORE GUNS.
Because the female jogger about to be mugged and raped he talks about has the self-control to not panic when faced six burly and menacing men.
Because the average American does have the skill to weild a handgun inside their own house during a terrifying robbery situation. Seriously, what if they end up putting holes in everything but the robber.
Because the society I want to live in is one based on fear and the threat of violence. Where everyone in the country walks around with a gun on their hip.
Government spending on health care, reducing poverty, and education is evil big government socialism! We're going to be the next Russia! :rolleyes:
-
Guns don't kill people. People do.
What America has failed to realise that they are a nation of people who do kill. The pro-gun lobby constantly point to Canada and Switzerland as examples of countries where gun ownership is high and say "See! Guns != death"
The problem is that as a nation America can't be trusted with guns. And I say that as someone from a nation that also can't be trusted with them. Which is why the UK outlawed them. The UK is a nation full of belligerent people. Give everyone in the UK guns and we'd have as much gun crime as the US. Maybe more. People who otherwise wouldn't commit any crime would probably be shooting each other in the street over things that they'd simply get angry about and then walk away from as things are now.
Fortunately the people of the UK seem to by and large realise this and as a result there are no big arguments in favour of gun ownership from the general public.
The true cowardice in the situation is that pro-gun America refuses to accept this fact about themselves.
-
Because the average American does have the skill to weild a handgun inside their own house during a terrifying robbery situation. Seriously, what if they end up putting holes in everything but the robber.
On the other hand, nobody in their right mind is going to keep coming faced with someone who's demonstrated both the means and the will to pump out the bullets at them. Rough surveys indicate that at the point somebody produces a gun, much less starts shooting, most robbers will give up and settle for escaping with their skin intact if they can. If you could trust people to keep their guns in the nightstand or under the counter instead of carrying them, then this would be much less of an issue.
Belligerence is a ridiculous excuse. Canada is every bit as belligerent, or at least much of it is. But they don't carry a firearm in the purse. Sweden is an even more blatant example of the point.
Because the society I want to live in is one based on fear and the threat of violence. Where everyone in the country walks around with a gun on their hip.
It'd be very polite, though. Because you don't want to give somebody a reason. :P
-
I think most of you have missed the point entirely, it's not about safety, it's about you being responsible for your self, or at the very least you being allowed to be responsible for yourself if you want to be.
-
Fortunately the people of the UK seem to by and large realise this and as a result there are no big arguments in favour of gun ownership from the general public.
I recall reading from a newspaper that the knife crime and stabbings have suddenly increased in UK, especially among the young. But maybe that is the point when you said about that you cannot trust people with firearms? What kind is the actual ban of firearms? Can you own shotguns and rifles?
The basic problem that is that peope feel insecure in the society. That is the reason they carry weapons. Maybe the solution is to increase police funding and stricter penalties. In a way that the jail doesn't become the criminal university. The core of the problem is that people see that the justice system does not work and take matters to their own hands.
Mika
-
I see you are clearly not commenting on the article posted.
-
Anyone accusing someone of being a pussy because they don't own a firearm is stupid.
-
name calling.
-
name calling.
Baaaaaaaaaaw some more.
-
obvious troll is obvious.
-
Since when did HLP become HL/b/?
-
if the meme fits...
-
Guns are kinda meh. I prefer melee weapons. Never underestimate the power of blunt trauma...
-
Guns are kinda meh. I prefer melee weapons. Never underestimate the power of blunt trauma...
You mean a concussion.
-
Guns are kinda meh. I prefer melee weapons. Never underestimate the power of blunt trauma...
You mean a concussion...
...missile?
-
name calling.
I thought you were all for name calling when the idea expressed was stupid?
I recall reading from a newspaper that the knife crime and stabbings have suddenly increased in UK, especially among the young.
From what I've heard Knife crime in general is actually down. It has however increased amongst the young and that is a rather worrying development.
But maybe that is the point when you said about that you cannot trust people with firearms?
Yep. That's exactly what I was on about. Although the rise in stabbings is worrying if these people had easy access to firearms there would be a lot more killings. Especially when you consider that it's fairly hard to accidentally stab someone compared with the ease with which you can hit someone else with crossfire.
What kind is the actual ban of firearms? Can you own shotguns and rifles?
The ban pretty much covers all private ownership of handguns and sawn off shotguns. Rifles are allowed for people who need them (like farmers for shooting rabbits, etc) There are certain exceptions of course.
Belligerence is a ridiculous excuse. Canada is every bit as belligerent, or at least much of it is.
I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that America is full of people who would quite happily pull out a gun and start blasting and think about the consequences later. Maybe Canada is too but they have realised that fact. I don't know enough about the Swiss to say whether they are too. Maybe they are.
Canada has a much higher rate of ownership of rifles and shotguns vs the American preoccupation with handguns. Belligerent or not Canada does accept that they need strict controls on handguns. If you listen to the NRA and the pro-gun lobby you'd think the solution was to hand out guns and carry permits to everyone. Even in Switzerland where most households have a gun carry permits are only handed out when the person can claim that they face a specific danger (for instance people working in security).
My main point is that America can't simply point at Canada and Switzerland and say "Guns work for them, so they'll work for us" America needs to realise that those countries are doing something to prevent them having crime rates as high as America.
But they don't carry a firearm in the purse.
Yep. And that cuts out a lot of it. But you still run the risk of being shot by your partner. Lock boxes would give you a few seconds to think about what you're doing but how are you ever going to make those mandatory?
-
name calling.
I thought you were all for name calling when the idea expressed was stupid?
if that's his opinion I have no problem with him expressing it, doesn't mean I won't call him on dodging the issue.
If you listen to the NRA and the pro-gun lobby you'd think the solution was to hand out guns and carry permits to everyone.
"Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will."
lol
My main point is that America can't simply point at Canada and Switzerland and say "Guns work for them, so they'll work for us" America needs to realise that those countries are doing something to prevent them having crime rates as high as America.
funny thing is a main point of the article is that Americans have lost the sence of self responsibility that is correlated with defending ones self. perhaps the thing these other countries are doing is not instilling into the population from a young age that they should rely on authority figures to protect them at all times?
-
I'll say this then,
Columbine anyone?
Virginia Tech anyone?
or how about the school in finland?
or the one in germany?
Nuff said
-
People like the NRA point at those as examples of why we need more guns. The pro-gun control people point at them as examples of why we need less.
So sadly, it's not "Nuff said" at all. :p
-
People like the NRA point at those as examples of why we need more guns. The pro-gun control people point at them as examples of why we need less.
So sadly, it's not "Nuff said" at all. :p
...Ok, i'm *This* close to lose complete faith in humanity.
-
you are being alarmist, I can kill just as many people with a knife and home made explosives if I wanted to, and I don't need to register for any of them, that doesn't even get into the world of illegally aqured guns in a gun free state.
further, I will point to those situations and ask what if a teacher had a gun with them on those days? what if these gunmen had armed resistance rather than defenseless people who's only option was to run away and wait for the cops to try to stop them?
-
The numbers of dead or injured would increase signifigantly since no one aims like people in hollywood do
-
You mean a concussion...
...missile?
Obviously, you've played too much D3. :drevil:
-
The numbers of dead or injured would increase signifigantly since no one aims like people in hollywood do
first off the numbers do not support your position
second the point is not safety but personal responsibility.
-
The numbers of dead or injured would increase signifigantly since no one aims like people in hollywood do
first off the numbers do not support your position
second the point is not safety but personal responsibility.
What numbers? We can only theorise about what a gun in a teacher's hand would have done, We don't exactly have proof that a gun in teachers hands would have done any difference, not that i know atleast.
Humans are apes, they don't have the nerves to handle a gun with responsible hands. We're flawed that way
-
what if a teacher had a gun with them on those days?
Sorry for being OT, but considering the amount of **** teachers need to digest in their jobs I'd rather not give'em guns :)
-
We can only theorise about future school shootings, We don't exactly have proof that allowing more law abiding citizens to have the ability to defend themselves by useing a gun would cause any more random school shootings.
you see those two subjects are completely unrelated.
the numbers I am referring to are the ones where laws have changed and deth rates have not followed you theorized pattern.
so I take it you are of the opinion that people need to be saved from themselves? that they need to be forced to be made more civilized? I don't get why that is only considered a crime against humanity when you are trying to apply it to people outside your culture, I think it's just as flawed when you do it to your own people.
-
You mean a concussion.
Blunt trauma is injury where skin is not pierced and no extrenal wound or bleeding occurs.
Penetrating trauma is injury where skin is penetrated and a visible external wound happens.
Perforating trauma is when there's both entry wound and exit wound.
Concussion is bruising of the brain resulting from rapid acceleration of the head, and I wasn't really referring to that. In indoors distances, a four-foot staff would likely be a very effective weapon provided you could use it. It has a good reach and if you have some training, most people would not have time to react to you striking at the gun to point some other direction than you, after which you could proceed on to disarm them or to whack them with your stick some more... And as far as lethality goes, a thrust to larynx or abdomen is nothing to look down at. Third and probably least lethal debilitating point is obviously the groin.
Besides that, how many burglars actually carry firearms? And how many are dumb enough not to keep a stakeout for the target house to confirm that no one is at home? Granted, the dumb ones probably are the ones that carry the firearms... but regardless, if you want to defend your home and family, get some decent alarm systems rather than a gun, which a sensible person would keep in a secure locker with ammunition stored in separate place and thus negating it's ultimate usefulness in a home-defense scenario...
Four-feet staff under the bed would be my preferred home defense solution. With a proper alarm and lock system. Moat couldn't hurt either, coupled with electric barbed wire fence and camera surveillance systems. With towered guard positions. And booby traps along the most probable approach routes.
All of which would be more effective defensive solutions than having a handgun. :p
Regarding school shootings... it boggles the mind why them guys don't end up dogpiled and disarmed in a short timespan. Probably panic mentality and lack of leadership, but still...
And as far as the phenomenon itself goes, nothing new with young men flipping out and going on a killing spree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok); it's just that with the increased ease of aquiring lethal weapons the consequences are all that much more severe...
-
I side with Kara about the person as an individual being the issue.
I searched google for "Canadian Gang Violence" to make a point but found this instead
The absent father and gang membership was one of the common threads being shared by gang members. In the gang, each member had the experience of a sense of acceptance, a sense of status.
Divorce rate in the US anyone?
I don't think I'd be wrong in saying American youth are notable contributors to gun related crimes. I don't think I'd be wrong either by saying gang violence was a major cause of gun-related violence.
A gang of male comrades substitutes for the role of the absent father, though very destructively. Acceptance into a gang often requires some form of initiation in which a prospective member has to prove his loyalty to other gang members. Some initiations require that a prospective gang member commit an act of robbery or violence, acts which earn the gang member higher status amongst peers. The South African study indicated that drug and alcohol use was rampant among gang members.
Interesting
-
further, I will point to those situations and ask what if a teacher had a gun with them on those days? what if these gunmen had armed resistance rather than defenseless people who's only option was to run away and wait for the cops to try to stop them?
The same the happened to two trained policemen in Germany:
They were shot. While they both survived (covered by the rest of the police, they were ganging up on him), they were heavily and life threatening injured.
I also dont see how a fire arm would have helped - if a teacher leaves the classroom to engage the guy, he will most probably endanger only himself - if he stays in the classroom he can stay in close combat range behind the door anyway, and do a surprise attack if he enters (in - very - close combat a handgun is a disadvantage)
-
I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that America is full of people who would quite happily pull out a gun and start blasting and think about the consequences later.
Excellent job flaunting your ignorance once again Kara. Simply amazing. I think I'm going to go grab an automatic rifle and start shooting my neighbors.
-
I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that America is full of people who would quite happily pull out a gun and start blasting and think about the consequences later.
Excellent job flaunting your ignorance once again Kara. Simply amazing. I think I'm going to go grab an automatic rifle and start shooting my neighbors.
You might not, but I'm sure someone would.
-
I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that America is full of people who would quite happily pull out a gun and start blasting and think about the consequences later.
Excellent job flaunting your ignorance once again Kara. Simply amazing. I think I'm going to go grab an automatic rifle and start shooting my neighbors.
I hate to generalise on this issue, but if you were to talk to some of the gangbangers there, they would probably shoot first ask questions later. In fact at youth penitentiaries they have to "Re-Train" them how to think, and change the way they think, which is Shoot-First ask q's l8r.
I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that America is full of people who would quite happily pull out a gun and start blasting and think about the consequences later.
Excellent job flaunting your ignorance once again Kara. Simply amazing. I think I'm going to go grab an automatic rifle and start shooting my neighbors.
You might not, but I'm sure someone would.
That's what I thought. He wasn't referring to you specifically, but you have to admit there are people everywhere that think like that. Just in America they're all over the media, breeding more of their kind.
-
Everything's relative - There are just more people willing to do it in America than elsewhere. It might only be 0.01% of the population, but that tiny percentage is still greater than in other countries. That's what Karajorma is getting at.
Not saying I'm agreeing with him. (I don't politics).
-
and guess what, that 0.01% of the population already has a gun, and won't return it just because they are asked nicely to do so.
if we were as violent and murder happy as is being suggested, we would already have burned to the ground long ago.
-
i think citizens should have the right to carry nukes
-
really, they are sort of heavy, I don't think many people would be carrying them.
-
i would
:D
-
and guess what, that 0.01% of the population already has a gun, and won't return it just because they are asked nicely to do so.
if we were as violent and murder happy as is being suggested, we would already have burned to the ground long ago.
Are you seriously claiming that every potential psychopath in the country already has a gun? And that doesn't worry you?
How many times have you heard of people assaulting other people because they cut them up in traffic or took their parking spot. What do you think would happen if all those people had a gun on them at the time?
-
Funny thing about this country (USA) is you don't have the freedom to drive and ride in a vehicle without a seat belt (at least here in Oregon) and they have strict rules about what you can burn or certain other things on your own property, yet some of the bigger things like being sexually crazy and fighting in bars
1.) Seat belt laws are pretty much universal (except in New Hampshire).
2.) The burning rules was to reduce overall air pollution. If we let everyone burn everything at anytime, that adds up and hurts our air quality. I used to enjoy our bright blue skies, what about you?
3.) Fighting in bars is hardly considered a good thing and you can get into trouble for it if someone calls the cops, but I don't see how this is different from anywhere else in the world.
4.) So what you're saying with that sexually crazy remark is that we should legislate morality? Slippery slope to a new Talibanistan.
And yeah, I lived almost my whole life in Oregon. Great state.
-
Sorry for being OT, but considering the amount of **** teachers need to digest in their jobs I'd rather not give'em guns
:lol: And here I thought it would be a good reason to give them guns! :lol:
EDIT: Oh, I wouldn't use quarterstaff @home. Restricted amount of space to fling it you see. Sabre or a scimitar would be better. I'm actually planning to hang one close to the front door. Along with the 1000 Watt flashlight, of course. Maybe I could also change the weak 40 W lamp outdoors to something more sparky. Like a 300 W Cermax. Directed right in the eye. The bad thing is that I probably would never use it! :lol:
Mika
-
On a more serious note, it is the ease at which people can be killed with firearms that matters. Bombs and rest of that kind of stuff requires more time, knowledge and skill.
We also have pretty good number of guns per capita, but quite many of us are taught to respect the authority and inform authorities of possible problems. So even if we think that police handles it for us, it hasn't generated so huge problem with firearms here. Though the number of incidents is rising. This has something to do with people obtaining firearms later on their life and not using them on hunting. And with organised crime, though that situation is lot worse in Sweden.
Mika
-
How many times have you heard of people assaulting other people because they cut them up in traffic or took their parking spot. What do you think would happen if all those people had a gun on them at the time?
In my experience you only hear about when they did have a gun on them.
-
Are you seriously claiming that every potential psychopath in the country already has a gun? And that doesn't worry you?
How many times have you heard of people assaulting other people because they cut them up in traffic or took their parking spot. What do you think would happen if all those people had a gun on them at the time?
most people who want a gun get one, especially the people who should not have one, there is not anarchy, I can walk down the street without getting shot, this is the state of things now. I really REALLY doubt that people are going to just start shooting each other anymore than I think they will just start stabbing each other, simply because of the fact that they do it don't now.
-
You give out more guns and people who don't currently have them are going to start wanting them. Especially if you're espousing the theory that anyone who doesn't carry one is a coward.
How many times have you heard of people assaulting other people because they cut them up in traffic or took their parking spot. What do you think would happen if all those people had a gun on them at the time?
In my experience you only hear about when they did have a gun on them.
Can't believe I'm saying this but you need to watch more Judge Judy. :p
But yeah. You only hear about it when one of them has a gun. Cause otherwise it's a minor assault rather than a homicide.
-
the point was anyone unwilling to defend themselves, guns are just one (and in the opinion of the guy who wrote that article, the best) way to do that.
and who is giving out guns? I'm certainly not advocating forcing a gun into everyone's hand, or giving them out freely, I'm just opposed to most of the anti-gun laws of the last half century, just like I'm opposed to the anti-drug laws, and laws which curtail free speech, or privacy. the only one of those I personally use a lot is speech, I don't own a gun, I don't smoke or drink, and I'm fairly public about everything I do. you want a order and peace, I want a liberty and freedom, after a certain point you have to pick one over the other.
-
I'm kind of surprised that we have "more" guns here in Canada. Guns are strictly controlled and in the urban areas its sort of shocking to see one. Its weird to me when I'm in a sporting store in the US and I see a whole area devoted to various kinds of firearms. We don't have that here.
-
you want a order and peace, I want a liberty and freedom, after a certain point you have to pick one over the other.
Nice try but if you want to argue about liberty I have to ask where you draw the line? Can I mount flame-throwers on my car to defend against car jackers for instance?
-
Or Lasers to keep the squirrels away? (http://xkcd.com/382/)
-
sure, though if you use them on someone not attacking you you're going to jail.
-
Which will be cold comfort for the victims. Do you really think that giving people who are stressed out from work and suffering from road rage access to weapons is a good idea? Cars are dangerous enough as is, you don't need to add weapons to the mix.
-
weapons are already in the mix.
-
Sorry for being OT, but considering the amount of **** teachers need to digest in their jobs I'd rather not give'em guns
:lol: And here I thought it would be a good reason to give them guns! :lol:
Hah! But that portrays exactly the line of thought here. The one that advocates a society implementing systemic fear as the means of keeping people from doing stupid things.
Well it might work, but personally I don't like the idea. Its like submitting to the "fact" that no real progress is possible on this area - we can only attempt to cap the damage that is inevitable. And once the atmosphere of fear is in place, there is no need or motivation for talks anymore - only silent regression thereafter.
-
People are over-estimating the American public's tendency of gun violence. People who don't live in America, no less. But still, I'm glad some people know that everyone in America is a raving lunatic, ready to have a show-down with anyone that ticks them off, even if they do live on the other side of oceans.
I thought that all the people I know personally wouldn't just shoot people, but hell, I've only lived around these guys for 16 years. If people who live thousands of miles away say otherwise, then who am I to question them?
EDIT: I would have thought the best way to stop crime is to persuade people against doing these things, instead of leaving them with the desire but not the means, but hey, that's not practical. Let's just take everything away that they can possible commit a crime with.
-
Fine. How do you explain the huge discrepancy between the American homicide rate and pretty much everywhere else in the West?
Oh wait. I've asked this one before and basically got the answer that it's due to having more blacks, Hispanics and other ethnicities than other countries. :rolleyes:
-
Kind of odd considering that's why, according to the far right, the UK is becoming a 'Third World Country', because of all its non-white, non-Christians.
As for guns, the whole reason the Police was instated in the first place to stop Anarchy from roaming the streets, this guy might think he's promoting self-responsibility, but what his article is actually suggesting is Anarchy, no law but the law you choose to make, and if they try to arrest you for it, well, your freedom is at stake, time to reach for that Semi again.
The Police don't exist because people are lazy, the Police exist because if they didn't, it'd be sheer chaos out there, with a million self-centric versions of 'Right and Wrong'.
-
EDIT: I would have thought the best way to stop crime is to persuade people against doing these things, instead of leaving them with the desire but not the means, but hey, that's not practical. Let's just take everything away that they can possible commit a crime with.
Actually, I was thinking getting rid of the root causes of crime, poverty, a prohibitively expensive health care system, and a failing educational system, rather than simply arming everyone as an end-all to the problem. Guns for self-defense is simply a bandage...not really treating the problem.
I'm not saying Americans are prone to gun violence necessarily, but we do live in a gun culture, and plenty of people do live in a reality created by Hollywood. When it comes down to dealing with a mad rampaging gunman, do you really think 20 year old blond Marissa or 76 year old Esther are going to be able to handle a gun the right way?
Also, with regards to school shootings: most schools have police officers in them for a reason. Students and teachers don't need to come to school packing weapons. And what would happen if we had another Columbine or Virginia Tech, and some other student with a gun tried to be a hero? What would happen if some truly sick mind bent on killing people saw someone trying to resist? It would only make it worse.
Like I said, deal with the problems at their source. Guns aren't always the answer.
-
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
I agree with banning guns. Surely nothing evil can possibly come from this.
-
Congratulations on losing the argument by Godwining yourself Maje. :p
-
One of the oldest arguments in the book. Unfortunately, that was back in the days when people marched in a line and didn't have weapons much more advanced than muskets and rifles. See what a hunting rifle or a handgun is going to do against a tank or a helicopter.
-
Congratulations on losing the argument by Godwining yourself Maje. :p
Kara, it's cool if you want flamethrowers on your car, but your gas consumption is going to go up crazy. If you think that you're paying out the butt now.... :p
-
:lol:
-
Kara, it's cool if you want flamethrowers on your car, but your gas consumption is going to go up crazy. If you think that you're paying out the butt now.... :p
If you're getting carjacked often enough that it makes a difference to your fuel consumption I'd suggest you might want to think about changing your lifestyle.
Perhaps you really don't need a diamond encrusted car after all. :p
-
If you're getting carjacked often enough that it makes a difference to your fuel consumption I'd suggest you might want to think about changing your lifestyle.
Perhaps you really don't need a car encrusted diamond after all. :p
fixed :p
-
Also, with regards to school shootings: most schools have police officers in them for a reason. Students and teachers don't need to come to school packing weapons. And what would happen if we had another Columbine or Virginia Tech, and some other student with a gun tried to be a hero? What would happen if some truly sick mind bent on killing people saw someone trying to resist? It would only make it worse.
I agree that students and teachers probably shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in school. That's overkill. But we aren't even allowed to carry mace. I'm not worried about defending myself from a Columbine-type event. I'd just like to be able to defend myself against a mugger in the neighborhood long enough to get to a safe area. School shootings are pretty rare. Muggings are much less rare. In fact, some mace would have been really handy freshman year when I had a somewhat intimidating stalker who I knew carried a knife. XP
-
You know, guns should be legalized for everyone, everywhere. Helps fight over-population.
-
But that's what nukes are for...
-
You know, guns should be legalized for everyone, everywhere. Helps fight over-population.
This becomes an issue when the smart people start getting gunned down instead of the stupid people.
-
@Kosh: They should worry more about getting rid of the use of ancient oil tech and put more effort into using alternatives than cracking down on who burns what on their property. Smoke stacks and cars give off much more. Society is so hypocrite here.
Portland is a small city and Oregon is a small state (in terms of population), beyond building an excellent mass transit system (as Portland has done) there isn't anything else that can be done at such a small scale. It would take hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars of battery research to come up with something practical. As it stands, non-oil based vehicles are too expensive. If they didn't also regulate burning the pollution problem would be even worse. It isn't hippocritical at all, it's doing what can be done on the scale they have to work with.
-
You know, guns should be legalized for everyone, everywhere. Helps fight over-population.
This becomes an issue when the smart people start getting gunned down instead of the stupid people.
if you were smart you would load hollow points instead of fmj and then you would spend time improving your aim.
-
You know, guns should be legalized for everyone, everywhere. Helps fight over-population.
This becomes an issue when the smart people start getting gunned down instead of the stupid people.
if you were smart you would load hollow points instead of fmj and then you would spend time improving your aim.
This discussion really reminds me of Streets of Sim City (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iB7FqmdAw).
I got that game. :yes:
-
****e, accidentally delorted that post. :mad:
Anyway, hollow point and FMJ rounds are only so useful. I prefer more esoteric ammunition. Anything with tungsten, really.
-
id use u238, if it wasnt illegal, or radioactive
holowpoints are only really useful against flesh, the wouldnt even dent armor at all. fmj is ok if it has velocity (as in rifle rounds), otherwise youre better off with hollow point. tephlon coated works for light armor, like what the cops wear. anything more than that has pretty much an auto-detonation requirement.
-
Divorce rate in the US anyone?
I'd worry more about the parents that never get married. If I'd have a half hour I'd search google for cases of 17 year old criminals who have 6 children with 4 mothers, and I'd probably find dozens.
I'm actually planning to hang one close to the front door. Along with the 1000 Watt flashlight, of course. Maybe I could also change the weak 40 W lamp outdoors to something more sparky. Like a 300 W Cermax. Directed right in the eye. The bad thing is that I probably would never use it! :lol:
Mika
NO!!!
Which way do you expect someone to break into your house? The chimney?
The front door is an obvious entry point, and a quarterstaff there would be both obstructed by the intruder and in his reach before you could get it. Also- where the hell do you get a kilowatt flashlight? Me wants. :p
You know, guns should be legalized for everyone, everywhere. Helps fight over-population.
I've heard the same about highways with no speed limts. That autobahns help fight overpopulation.
P.S. Should I search for that Gun Town USA article again? Or how Chicago's handgun ban affects the murder rate with handguns?
-
/me watches all 5 deathwish movies
-
P.S. Should I search for that Gun Town USA article again?
Go for it. I'll enjoy pointing out how the claims that are frequently made about how it affected the burglary rate are complete bollocks (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php).
-
Looking at the article, the basic problem is that if everyone is allowed to buy a gun without restrictions, I (an awfully big and very friendly guy) would not buy one, because I would never think I need one. A burglar however, would, since buying a gun legally is much easier then buying one illegally (you would have to find a retailer, for one), and then, I am facing a problem: When the gun laws where still in place, and there was a 'hot burglary', I could fight the burglar, or scare him off (I am bigger!). Now, he has a gun. When I attempt to fight him or scare him off, I might just get shot.
I might prevent this problem by buying a SPAS-12 shotgun, but that creates another problem: I just killed a (wo)man, and may have used to much force, making me a criminal and a murderer.
-
If the burglar has a criminal record, he can't buy a gun legally (IIRC that's a Fed law, just like the age limit of 21). Kennesaw's law stated that all home owners should buy guns, it didn't allow all people to buy guns.
@Kara- The article was not about burglary rate, but about crime rate in general (which fell), and mass shootings everyone feared and predicted (which never happened).
-
You didn't get mass shootings because no one got a gun who wouldn't have gotten one anyway. The law was never enforced. It was symbolic. Find me proof that levels of gun ownership in that town actually changed immediately after the law was passed. Find me proof that 25 years on they still had changed.
-
NO!!!
Which way do you expect someone to break into your house? The chimney?
The front door is an obvious entry point, and a quarterstaff there would be both obstructed by the intruder and in his reach before you could get it. Also- where the hell do you get a kilowatt flashlight? Me wants.
Forgot to reply on this.
First, I would hang the scimitar or the sabre close to the entry way, not the quaterstaff just because of the reasons mentioned. There is only one way out, and I tend to hear someone opening the door quite quickly. And he doesn't know it is there.
Regarding the flashlight, my job as research scientist has it's nice sides...
Mika
-
You didn't get mass shootings because no one got a gun who wouldn't have gotten one anyway. The law was never enforced. It was symbolic. Find me proof that levels of gun ownership in that town actually changed immediately after the law was passed. Find me proof that 25 years on they still had changed.
The difference isn't is in how many people own guns, its the probability of gun ownership that criminals think about. Robbing a house where the owner is prohibited from owning a gun is different from robbing a house where there is a good chance the owner is armed and will blow you away without hesitation if you break in.
And gun laws are unevenly applied. Criminals obviously don't care about breaking the law, or they wouldn't be criminals. They could care less about owning an illegal firearm. Law-abiding citizens do care about breaking the law, so that means they go without guns, since owning them would be illegal.
-
The difference isn't is in how many people own guns, its the probability of gun ownership that criminals think about.
And the probability of any house in that town having a gun didn't change at all after this law was brought in.
So to claim that there was a change in the burglary rate due to gun ownership when their was no change in the gun ownership rate is strange at best.
And no, I'm not comparing the town against towns which did ban guns. If passing a law to make guns mandatory did have a real effect then it would be visible against a control, there should be no need to compare it against a completely different test subject.
-
The difference isn't is in how many people own guns, its the probability of gun ownership that criminals think about.
And the probability of any house in that town having a gun didn't change at all after this law was brought in.
So you are saying that law-abiding citizens just wantonly ignore gun control laws?
-
maybe they should hand out free guns
-
Ugh, do we really need to get the gun crime records for Chicago from that old thread? When firearms are illegal, it does not reduce the amount of crimes committed with firearms. If a person is willing to commit a crime in the first place, why would they worry about gun control laws?
Just as a refresher course:
Well then:
Here's a statistic:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
I've posted it here already, but since General Battuta asking for more than anecdotal evidence, I'm posting it again in case you've missed it.
It says here, that crime rates in general drop when people must own firearms, and rise when they cannot own firearms. It also says that in Kennesaw, Georgia, there was not a single murder in the 25 years of mandatory gun ownership.
And here's another one:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
The article says that there are between 108,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the USA (based on 15 surveys). That makes the "dozens who get killed because they pulled out a gun and failed to use it" less than 0.1% of the cases. Also notice that:
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
in 2005 there were 569 homicides by shooting in Illinois.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/Murder2005.pdf (page 28)
339 of those happened in Chicago, and 327 of these were commited by handguns, which are prohibited in Chicago.
Just that makes the majority of shootings done by people who don't care about gun laws (or insurance policies, for that matter). A more detailed search will result in a much larger percentage of illegal guns being used. In other words- no matter how restrictive the laws, most gun crimes will still occur.
It also proves that 3/5 of the gun crimes are involved in a place where less than 3 out of the 12 million Illinois residents live, in the place where gun laws are the most strict in the state.
Now, remember the second article, about the minimum 108k defensive gun uses per year? According to the www.ichv.org site, there were 330 deaths from legal gun use and 221 from undetermined intent in the USA in 2005. And 330/108 000 times 100% gives just above 0.3%. A maximum of 3 people out of 1000 who (legally) pulled out a gun actually (legally) killed someone in self defense. The other 997 were fine just by showing the perp they have one, or shooting but not killing them.
This makes the argument of thugs continuing their assault after the victim pulls out a weapon mostly false too.
And a final thing:
Notice that in 2005, there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S, among them:
12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
If not for the guns, 17k people would have poisoned themselves, jumped off bridges or used some other method to kill themselves.
If not for the suicides, there would have been 13 692 gun related deaths, or only 45% of the total.
P.S. Taking the 108k defensive gun uses (the smallest of all surveys) as the true number, somewhere in America 12 people have used their guns in self defense while I was writing this post. (It took me about an hour to find and read everything, and write it)
When guns are proscribed, gun crimes do not decrease.
-
So you are saying that law-abiding citizens just wantonly ignore gun control laws?
I'm saying that when you make gun ownership mandatory it doesn't change gun ownership in the slightest unless you enforce that. People who don't want a gun in their house don't suddenly buy one. People who are obsessed with guns don't change their habits either.
So the stats from that town are basically worthless.
-
Sorry for being absent, had a busy week.
Here's something that does show how legally carrying concealed guns reacts with crime rate (a lot better than Gun Town USA does):
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
The crime rate in Florida grew steadily from 1960 to 1988, 1 year after the concealed carry licenses became available (2,705 per 100k in '60 to 8,938 per 100k in '88), and then began to drop steadily, from 8000+ in the mid 80's to 4000+ in the mid 2000's, per 100 000 inhabitants.
The number of people able to legally carry concealed guns grew from zero before 10/1/87 to 553,822 (or 3034 per 100k inhabitants) in 2/28/09.
-
The overall number of crimes didn't actually change much though did they? In fact until 1994 the number of violent crimes increased. What happened is that the number of people in the state increased. Increasing by about two million between the introduction of the ban and 1994.
I'd want an explanation of why the population of Florida changed by millions between those two dates before I consider those statistics to be worth a damn. Cause if it's due to large numbers of old people moving to the state (who generally don't commit large numbers of crimes) then carrying concealed had little effect on the crime rate at all and what caused the fall was simply having more honest people in the state.
Furthermore I strongly question your conviction that the crime rate fell as a result of carry permits as opposed to better policing.
Here's the stats per 100,000 people.
1986 11,675,000 8,228.4 1,036.5 7,191.9 11.7 52.7 366.8 605.3 2,221.3 4,372.6 598.1
1987 12,023,000 8,503.2 1,024.4 7,478.7 11.4 50.2 356.6 606.3 2,256.9 4,545.2 676.7
1988 12,377,000 8,937.6 1,117.7 7,819.9 11.4 49.7 403.3 653.3 2,294.3 4,760.6 765.1
1989 12,671,000 8,804.5 1,109.4 7,695.1 11.1 49.7 404.0 644.6 2,282.8 4,606.6 805.7
So in 1989, two years after the option to carry concealed came in. What had happened?
Violent crime - Up, Property crime - Up, Murder - Down, Rape - Down, Robbery - Up, Assault - Up, Burglary - Up.
So we didn't even see a sudden drop in the number of crimes per person. It took years to bring those averages down. You'll probably claim that it took those years to get the gun ownership up and for the criminals to realise this. On the other hand I can claim that the effect on crime could simply be due to better policing methods and you're going to be hard pressed to prove me wrong. Which basically means your stats aren't worth a damn when it comes to proving your point.
Furthermore, 12 years after allowing concealed carry.
In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,882.7 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 3rd highest. Also in the year 2000 Florida had 5.6 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 21st highest rate for Murder. Florida’s 44.2 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 7th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Florida’s rate was 199.0 which ranked the state as having the 5th highest for Robbery. The state also had 563.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 2nd highest position for this crime among the states. For every 100,000 people there were 1,081.8 Burglaries, which ranks Florida as having the 3rd highest standing among the states. Larceny - Theft were reported 3,242.9 times per hundred thousand people in Florida which standing is the 5th highest among the states. Vehicle Theft occurred 558.0 times per 100,000 people, which fixed the state as having the 5th highest for vehicle
Yeah. The carry concealed thing was definitely having an effect on crime. Even in robbery and burglary, the crimes that carrying a weapon is supposed to prevent Florida is 5th and 3rd in the country.
-
Well, gee, I guess it has to be those nice old folks who never commit any crimes :rolleyes:.
-
Well, in 2007 Florida was on the 6-th place.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Also note that the national average was growing until 1991 (While FL's grew till '88); and that Florida was 2953 crimes per 100k above the national average in '87, and 1082 crimes per 100k in 2007, an almost 3x smaller "advantage".
Now you say that there was better policing. Any evidence to support that claim?
Any evidence to support the claim FL's population grew due to old people moving in, and not illegal immigrants for instance?
And if you'd check the http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html site, you'd know that of the 1,461,778 licenses issued, 4,571 were revoked (3,855 of which were due to crimes commited by the licensee, with 166 involving a gun). That makes CCW's a huge gun crime generator- 0.01% (10 per 100k) of the licencees lost their license due to gun violence.
-
You've claimed it's due to gun ownership. Prove that. Guess what, you can't. Correlation != causation and you only have a very weak correlation anyway.
Well, gee, I guess it has to be those nice old folks who never commit any crimes :rolleyes:.
Let me explain it more simply then since you don't seem able to grasp the more complicated way I put it earlier.
Same number of crimes + More people = Lower crime rate. Now I'd want to know whether the rapid rise was due to immigration from Cuba, Old people moving to Florida or any number of other factors before I'd be happy to assume the rate has fallen due to there actually being less criminals in total.
I notice you failed to address the other more important objections I had though.
On a personal note I find it hilarious that anyone would hold up the state which is in the top ten for violent crimes as an example of how being able to carry concealed reduces crime. :D
-
So dropping from second highest to 6-th highest in 7 years is a bad example?
Well then, if Florida is a bad example, what about the US as a whole country?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif)
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Why does crime rate go down, when more people are allowed to carry a concealed firearm (look at 1995 to 1999, just after 7 states went from 'no issue' to 'shall issue' in the mid 90's; crime rate goes down by 1000 per 100 000) ? Or was there a huge immigration of old people who don't commit crimes to the USA in the 1990's?
And we're still waiting for info about immigration to Florida, and better police work in FL since the late 1980's.
-
Again correlation != causation.
This is likely the same nonsense you were trying with Florida on a larger scale. You've provided no proof that crime rates didn't simply fall nationwide (including the states that don't issue carry permits). Your sample is far too ridiculously big, with no control, to be proof of anything except your inability to provide anything beyond anecdotal proof.
Shall I point out that Crime rates in the UK (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm) showed a similar drop over the same time scale? What does that mean with regard to crime in the US? Absolutely bugger all cause there is no way to tease out what part gun control played in that.
It's exactly the same thing with your data.
-
Well the graph on the site you linked to seems to show that the US had a higher burglary rate than England, Wales, Canada and the Netherlands in 1980, and a lower burglary rate then all of them in 2000.
Perhaps all the old non-criminal people moved from those countries to the US, raising the formers' burglary rate, and lowering the latter's?
-
The burglary rate in the states barely changed during that time. What happened was that the rate in the UK went up.
And yet again you're taking cheap shots with very little data and no proof that the causes are what you claim they are.
-
Again correlation != causation.
It gets really annoying to argue this when you dismiss all evidence just because you don't want to hear it.
Let's switch to a little different argument. WHY should there be guns laws? The answer: No reason whatsoever.
Homicide Rate = 61.8873%-0.0355%(Gun Ownership Rates)
What this means is that if the mathematical comparison is good, Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value. Now for Washington DC, the predicted rate is 61.7523% whereas the actual rate is 80.0333%. A comparison going the other direction is New Hampshire, which has a gun ownership of 30%, which predicts 60.8218% homicide rate but the actual is 41.3900%.
The big deal is the t-value of -0.3585 and the p-value of 0.7214. This means that there is a 72.14% chance the prediction will be rejected and there is no reasonable comparison between the dependent and independent variables.
Basically, what this says is there is absolutely no correlation
between gun ownership rates or gun restrictions and homicides. Criminals still kill, guns or no.
So, since the level of gun control, where low ownership and high restriction Massachusetts and high ownership low restriction Alaska have the same murder rates, we can safely say that removal of firearms restrictions is a reasonable decision. When the number of weapons in circulation have no impact on crime and homicide rates, there simply is no reason spending billions of dollars regulating laws that clearly have no impact on criminal activities.
I then ran the same numbers with reading at a 4th grade level and that comparison only has a 34% chance of being rejected. Being able to read a newspaper has a stronger bearing on firearms violence than gun ownership does.
For clarification, here is the graph he uses as well:
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
It gets really annoying to argue this when you dismiss all evidence just because you don't want to hear it.
Nice try. :D I'm dismissing your evidence because it has no value. Not because I don't want to hear it.
The fact I've been able to drive trucks through the holes in the evidence so far presented means it is either incomplete or you are drawing the wrong conclusion. If you want to argue a common sense argument, go ahead. But if you're going to try to back that up with statistics you should be prepared for someone to question your methodology.
Let's switch to a little different argument. WHY should there be guns laws? The answer: No reason whatsoever.
And I 100% agree with his argument. Gun laws at the state level have very little effect.
Of course that doesn't mean that gun laws at the national level don't have an effect. And that's where his argument fails. The availability of guns in America is largely due to the prevalence of guns in the country. State or county wide bans have very little effect because someone can simply bring guns in. There are no checks on the borders after all so what is to stop them?
-
Of course that doesn't mean that gun laws at the national level don't have an effect.
And also, of course, a national gun ban/law is actually unconstitutional. Go figure.
All of this is a moot point anyway. We have our opinions. I would immensely support gun rights, because I would rather be able to defend myself from a would-be robber/murderer. You, apparently, ascribe to the idea that we should all be little defenseless sheep for the police to shepherd.</joke>
I know you don't really think that.
EDIT: emphasized really.
-
I think guns give you a false comfort which you have to pay for. And I pay for enough things as it is.
-
I have to agree with Kara. Guns give a false sense of security.
I suspect the reason some people are so attached to their guns is cause guns mean power. They don't want to give up their power.
Not to mention that guns serve as penis extensions and ego boosters to many.
-
I think it should be changed before it really gets out of hand.
My God, you are completely and totally oblivious to the state of affairs in Washington regarding the constitution, aren't you. Half the s*** that goes on there shouldn't be, according to the constitution. It hasn't gotten out of hand, the government has (Yay for the constitutional freedom to think and say that :D)
I think the laws may reduce the amount of crimes commited since their would be consequences.
Said it before, will have to say it again. If someone is already going to break the law, why would they bother respecting the standing gun laws? Answer: No flippin' reason whatsoever.
Doesn't hiding behind guns ... sound cowardly?
That statement makes the entire U.S. military a bunch of cowards that risk and lose their lives to protect yours.
talk him into putting the gun down and talk about the consequences and to think about what he is doing
If a guy is performing an armed robbery on your house, what makes you think he gives a f*** about what you're feeling?
They say a truly mature and advanced society would have peace like never before.
In which case a truly mature and advanced society will never exist. War is an inevitable facet of the human culture. It happens because people compete with other people. That competition escalates, and conflict begins. War is unavoidable because different groups of people have mutually exclusive and conflicting aims and desires.
Only fighting the threats.
And is a society to just sit back until the threat forces them on the defensive? How can a government or people rationalize jeopardizing their citizens just for the sake of delaying war for a few more days or weeks? It is dangerously irresponsible.
I think those who carry guns so much are cowards and too scared to use other methods for defense and power.
Pretty strong statement. Why not just expand it to all forms of martial practice, they can all be used as weapons? Oh, wait. No one gives a damn about swords, or bows, or deadly martial arts. People are just scared s***less because guns look and sound scary. You can go ahead and call everyone who learns a martial art a coward too, while you're at it. Why are guns such a symbol of cowardice to you?
most are too scared to use it anyways
And when you find one who isn't, have a happy funeral.
EDIT: One of the largest forces for peace is war. Check my sig. Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's Latin for "If you want peace, prepare for war." What better way to stop war than to be seen as too costly/difficult to attack?
-
Wasn't that the philosophy that almost blew the world up in 1961?
-
? 1961? That was the Bay of Pigs. Are you thinking of 1963, with the Cuban Missile Crisis? Russian advanced placement of specific offensive nuclear missiles is more provocation than it is defensive thinking. Besides, they used it for quite a while up until then too. It's called brinkmanship.
-
Yeah but your philosophy is deterrence, which leads to escalation, and eventually to brinksmanship.
I get an alarm to defend my home. Criminals get a knife to gut me before the police show up. I get a baseball bat to protect myself in addition to the alarm. Criminals come with a pistol. I get a pistol. Criminal gets a semi-auto, I get an auto.
Trying to look more menacing than the other guy to avoid being attacked is only a short-term solution. It's dangerous in the long run because eventually one side gets so far ahead the other side can't top them. Confrontation happens, one goes to hospital and the other to the morgue.
If you want peace, you should make war impossible or at least near impossible. As long as we're on the topic of JFK, then we should be focusing on eliminating poverty and disease rather than living in a world of fear where the only peace is kept by deterrence and the fear of reprisal.
-
If you want peace, you should make war impossible or at least near impossible.
what do you call MAD? No country would willingly destroy itself and all its people like that by attacking anyone. And they wouldn't attack because the other guy is just as big and scary as they are.
-
But then the US gets a missile shield to stop Russia's nukes. Mutually assured destruction only works as a philosophy when destruction is mutual--both sides die. The escalation is endless, at least until the point where the other side gets the guts to strike before the other side can get powerful enough to put the fear of MAD back into effect.
Seriously, how much more forward would we all be if we didn't spend billions every year building the bigger stick to scare people off with?
-
Seriously, how much more forward would we all be if we didn't spend billions every year building the bigger stick to scare people off with?
We would be nowhere, as the warmongers would overrun and conquer us pacifists.
-
Seriously, how much more forward would we all be if we didn't spend billions every year building the bigger stick to scare people off with?
We would be nowhere, as the warmongers would overrun and conquer us pacifists.
Who is it this time, the big bad Commies the hidden terror cells or the Chinese? :rolleyes:
The whole point of having allies is not having to bear the sole burden for military defense. When we're spending billions of dollars a year on military spending in wars where we have no support, and developing newer and shinier weapons we don't necessarily need, by ourselves, it only makes the situation worse.
I can guarantee I can find more examples of where war, dictatorship, and conflict was prevented by economic stability and aid than by where military force has been needed. The US doesn't need a several billion dollar a year defense budget where humanitarianism and economic assistance can do the job without the cost of American lives and military resources.
Imagine what we could do with several billion dollars alloted to, say, health care, education, science, or technology.
-
because for some people, the law is all that is holding them back.
Case in point, anything I was talking about them doing is against the law. Moot point.
I never asked to be protected and I don't want it.
Fine then, move somewhere else.
Also, it is cowardice when they shoot down civiis and I feel anger thinking about it.
:wtf:
Okay, to sum it up: You think that the military is a bunch of cowards, partly because you didn't ask for it, and partly because you just don't like guns or people with guns. That's about what it sounds like. Were it not illegal and immoral, I would challenge you to be behind a gun and pull the trigger on someone. It takes a lot more than a coward to do it.
Because you are too scared to get too close and also want an unfair fight.
Being scared has nothing to do with it. Getting close voluntarily is stupid in a fight, it gives them a better position on you. Also, damn right I want an unfair fight. You generally walk away from those more often.
true strong minded thing to do would be to not fight and try to control yourself and reason with each other.
Tell ya what. Why don't you head down to the Middle East and see how far that gets. Ideals like that only work when the other side shares your values.
Also, to put themselves in the situation of committing murder and throwing their lives away by going to prison shows lack of self respect since they basically threw their own future away
Problem is, most of them think that "oh, it'll never happen to me, I'm to good." Besides, its their future, not anyone else's. If they want to throw it away, they can be my guest. I just take a small amount of comfort from the fact that if they come to my particular house, I can do more than just hope they are too nervous to pull the trigger.
They should think with their brains, not with their emotions so much.
In a perfect world, Mr. Stoic.
It isn't a problem if you are smart enough to avoid certain areas or situations
Yeah, like your house when you go to sleep at night and a robber breaks in.
you are more likely to get shot
:snipe: (always wanted to use that one)
So be it.
Don't let the culture brainwash you because it seems that the USA likes war and I will have no part in this or anyone who thinks that way.
Merely because I support the values of my culture and my right to defend them does not mean that I have been brainwashed by it. War is sometimes necessary. It is also Hell, but a necessary Hell. If you want to fool yourself into thinking that it never, ever has to come to that, go ahead. I prefer to plan for the inevitable than put all my hopes on the infallibility of the human spirit :doubt:.
Another thing is there is no such thing as a best country.
:confused: Did I accidentally say this somewhere? Oh, wait. Nope.
To have peace, you must put certain differences aside (like religious beliefs), try to avoid misunderstandings and reason to remedy the misunderstandings before making a move, don't look for a fight, and cooperate. Get real.
Okay, go tell this to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyah, Mahmoud Zahar, Robert Mugabe, Omar Al-Bashir, Kim Jong Ill, and any number of people who kill thousands of people on their way to power. Why don't we just tell them to put their differences aside and co-operate. Like that will ever happen. :doubt:
Also, the certain freedoms we have here come at an expensive price.
You know the old saying, "Freedom isn't free." I'm not even going to address the rest of that demagogue because it wasn't the point of the argument (aside from pointing out that we have some of the best health care in the world, that even the poorest American is in the 10% richest people in the world bracket, excellent homeland security, and to top it off, excellent job opportunities, compared to the rest of the world.)
-
some of the best health care in the world
:lol:
Compared with who? Nearly every other industrialized nation in Western Europe beats ours. The UAE and Saudi Arabia were ranked higher by WHO (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf). We've got some serious work to do in that department.
We beat the pants off Africa though!
-
lol, being dead is better health care than in Africa.
EDIT: also, maybe in availability, but they come nowhere close in terms of treatment ability.
-
US is ranked 37th in performance, 72nd in overall level of health.
So yes, they actually surpass us by far in terms of treatment ability. France is ranked 4th in overall health and 1st in performance, Italy is 3rd and 2nd, Oman is 1st and 8th, Spain is 6th and 7th.
-
touche.
-
I get an alarm to defend my home. Criminals get a knife to gut me before the police show up.
Rank stupidity. Once the alarm has gone out their only viable option is to run. The police are going to come anyways, and killing you will only make the situation worse.
Get a different metaphor!
-
Police only turn up for alarms if they run long enough that someone calls them. If you can get to the houseowner and threaten them quickly the alarm will be probably be turned off fast enough that the neighbours will probably think it's an accidental triggering.
What a thief will do depends on how determined the criminal is to burgle your house.
-
Police only turn up for alarms if they run long enough that someone calls them. If you can get to the houseowner and threaten them quickly the alarm will be probably be turned off fast enough that the neighbours will probably think it's an accidental triggering.
What a thief will do depends on how determined the criminal is to burgle your house.
You appear to have some kind of stupidly designed alarm system for reference; any capable alarm system in the US will place a call directly to the police when it activates. Indeed, I don't think you can get another kind. Most of them are silent; most have at most a fifteen second window to get in the door and deactivate, plus a backup code that looks like deactivation but isn't if the system is not silent.
So no. Get a different metaphor.
-
Well if alarms are so good in the USA why would anyone need a gun for home defence against burglars then?
The only home defence need for them would then be against psychopaths, surely?
-
Maybe you should read more carefully. I said reduce it, not stop it. It will stop the people who would not do it if it is a law. If it wasn't a law, then even the people who wouldn't do it might do it since it would be legal because for some people, the law is all that is holding them back. Understand?
If the law is holding people from shooting others, why ban guns anyway?
Because you are too scared to get too close and also want an unfair fight.
No, he just wants to survive the fight. It's not like both sides agree with each other on a set of rules and see who's better, that's what sports are for.
They can try putting the gun down and face me head on instead of hiding behind a weapon.
And what does putting the gun down give them?
Actually, the true strong minded thing to do would be to not fight and try to control yourself and reason with each other.
So would you agree to give someone your wallet, cell phone and watch if he/she kindly requests them?
Yeah but your philosophy is deterrence, which leads to escalation, and eventually to brinksmanship.
I get an alarm to defend my home. Criminals get a knife to gut me before the police show up. I get a baseball bat to protect myself in addition to the alarm. Criminals come with a pistol. I get a pistol. Criminal gets a semi-auto, I get an auto.
Criminal goes to a house that has "This place is gun free" on it's front door, you are safe.
I think guns give you a false comfort which you have to pay for. And I pay for enough things as it is.
Same can be said about seat belts and airbags, but it doesn't mean it's true.
I never asked to be protected and I don't want it.
How good are/were you in history @ school? There were dozens of countries and empires who figured they don't need any army or a strong army. They generally don't exist anymore
true strong minded thing to do would be to not fight and try to control yourself and reason with each other.
Well, what happens when the criminal is not a strong minded person?
I'm not worried at all. I actually prefer speed and stealth or avoiding the situation if I have too. There are so many ways besides guns. You are thinking black and white. No matter what you do, you always take chances in life. So I don't worry too much about physical safety. It is good to use your brain and prevention is the best cure to most things in life.
So how exactly do you use speed and stealth?
I live in a relatively safer state than you probably (Oregon).
Relatively your chances to win the lottery are hundreds of thousands times smaller than being a victim of a crime.
Note that USA went overboard on Hiroshima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
More people died on that small island than in both nukings together. What makes you think that the Battle of Honshū would have had a smaller casualty count than Okinawa? Predicted losses were in the millions (or tens of millions, don't remember right now).
But since it would have been a fair game, with no superweapons, you'd be just fine with that right?
P.S. I agree with Karajorma this time.
P.P.S Sorry for mixing up the posts a bit.
-
There are 2 kinds of burglars:
1. The ones that just want your money and are not looming for trouble. Let's call this type, type A.
2. The ones that really want your money and don't care much about trouble. They'll do whatever it takes to get it. Type B
Both types can carry a guns. A person owning a gun can also own a gun. Thus we have 4 probable outcomes:
1) Type A burglar, owner doesn't have a gun
the burglar doesn't see you as a threat if you cooperate. He gets your money but you and your family are safe. The police will probably catch him.
2) Type B burglar, owner doesn't have a gun
the burglar doesn't see you as a threat if you cooperate. He gets your money. Unless he's a very violent type, you and your family are safe.
3) Type A burglar, owner has a gun
the burglar sees you as a threat. He will either run or panic and start shooting. 50% chance either way.
4) Type B burglar, owner has a gun
the burglar sees you as a threat. He starts shooting. High chance of you ending up dead, since he's probably a better shot.
-
I really, really wish you Europeans or whatevers would stop judging us by the **** you see on TV, especially considering most of you ever never even been to America, or if you have you certainly haven't been anywhere outside of major cities.. Sure, our government has made some rather horrid choices in the recent past, but judging a country solely by its leader (along with some school shootings and stupid **** like that) here and there, is like saying all Germans are Nazis. Seriously, how do you people get the impressions that we shoot each other to settle the slightest of arguments or that every highschooler is a drug addicted delinquent? :wtf:
-
I wish you Americans would stop assuming that us Europeans can't have lived in America and/or know all about it from other sources. :p
I think guns give you a false comfort which you have to pay for. And I pay for enough things as it is.
Same can be said about seat belts and airbags, but it doesn't mean it's true.
I can point to statistics that prove that seat belts and airbags have a real effect on survivability in a crash. You've still failed to provide any proof that the reduction in crime over the last 10 years in the US has been due to gun ownership.
-
Heh I just thought I'd chime in since I've been working on alarm systems in one form or another since the early 90's.
Alarms in a residential alarms activate, the monitering station calls the home first. If noone answers, or you answer and request help/act "odd" on the phone, they send the police. Police are not sent automatically for a general alarm.
Now some home systems have what they call panic alarms. These can be either a button (ie my apartment system as one attached in the bedroom to be reachable from bed for a medial issue) or by inputing a code into the alarm keypad which shuts down the alarm and calls police. This is for when the "Smart burglar" forces you to shut it off.
Now alarms in banks and other offices can have numberous panic alarms through out. Banks will have buttons at each teller as well as what's called a billtrap, a set pack of money that isn't used, fits under a clip so that when it's pulled out an alarm goes off.
But my point is, just because your home alarm activates, does not mean cops will show up right away. Reason is because imagine the number of false alarms due to equipment faults, user errors, and such. On average police allow 1-2 false alarms a month before you are billed per false alarm.
-
Well if alarms are so good in the USA why would anyone need a gun for home defence against burglars then?
The only home defence need for them would then be against psychopaths, surely?
Gun is cheaper. :P
Warlock: not so, some, perhaps many alarms operate that way, but there are those that do not; I remember because the one my parents had did place a direct call to the police and the alarm company would cancel it if you answered the phone.
-
Gun is cheaper. :P
But according to you so much less effective that it's almost stupid to buy a gun first.
-
Of course there's always exceptions to every rule ;) I can't speak about every central station ...just ones on systems I've dealt with.
But most do call the owner first on a general alarm....which is good since I've set a great many off by mistake over the years servicing them :D
-
Gun is cheaper. :P
But according to you so much less effective that it's almost stupid to buy a gun first.
Perhaps, but the accidental setting off of, the stress, the annoyance, and the cost (and it is not an inconsiderable cost) of an alarm system makes it quite a bit less attractive.
-
Okay High Max, how about you tell me where you live so I can rob you while you try and persuade me not to. Hopefully you do realize you get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
-
I can point to statistics that prove that seat belts and airbags have a real effect on survivability in a crash.
Causation !=Correlation.
I can and will say that every time you try to say something like that. It's really easy to dismiss evidence on that grounds.
There are so many ways besides guns.
Not one of which is a more permanent future deterrent.
No matter what you do, you always take chances in life.
And I carry a gun so I don't have to take a stupid chance with my life like that.
I live in a relatively safer state than you probably
Doesn't really matter. It can still happen. FYI, I live in East Kansas.
You are being paranoid.
Carries with it the nice bonus of living longer.
since the previous is much more likely.
But generally more survivable. Just sometimes.
When did I say it was perfect
You didn't. I was saying that stuff like you want to happen will only happen in a perfect world. Sort of like pure communism.
No but many Americans tend to say that it has the best quality of life
Don't really care. I live here, I will keep on living here. If I were living in Somalia, I would think the same way. Where I am has no effect on my thinking in that respect (except maybe Zimbabwe).
which I hate to hear that stupid remark
Then don't put said stupid remark in my mouth for me.
Notice that the USA is almost always an invading force
Only recently. I can cite quite a few examples of when we weren't. American Revolution, War of 1812, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea (that was the United Nations, technically), War Between the States. It has only been just recently that we have been invaders. Vietnam we didn't invade, we were helping our ally, South Vietnam. 1st Gulf War was United Nations. Somalia was also United Nations. I'll give you Afghanistan and Iraq. That's it.
Note that USA went overboard on Hiroshima
I refuse to note this because it is not true. On Okinawa, the civilians were throwing themselves from cliffs rather than allow themselves to be occupied. How much worse would it have been if the city of Tokyo were invaded? How many millions of peolpe would have died. Hiroshima was the least costly alternative.
Both capitalism and communism have pros and cons
:wtf: Stop trying to change the subject
And then another very bad thing is they killed only around 2000 Americans and USA killed 100's of times that.
2400 at Pearl Harbor alone. Six other island bases were hit within two days. Over 6000. It was a war. If you want me to pull up casualty figures I can, but the Japanese did a lot more than 2000. 12000 on Okinawa alone. Dead.
There would be less war if this country didn't always invade like a war hungry culture doing more harm than good
It doesn't always do that. See response above.
Second, do you know how many people Saddam Hussein killed? The Taliban killed? Then look at how many the U.S. has killed since we went in. Hussein gassed 5000 of his own people in North Iraq, and during his reign killed almost 300,000 people. Now tell me we did more harm than good.
You're saying that the poorest Americans are richer than the richest people from other countries?
No. I'm also not saying that America has 10% of the world's population, in case you wanted to get that wrong too. I was saying that even some of the poorest Americans are in the top 600 million richest people.
You strike me as a trigger happy person. That isn't very grown up.
Why not? Just because you don't think so?
Hopefully you do realize you get further with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
:lol:
-
Gun is cheaper. :P
But according to you so much less effective that it's almost stupid to buy a gun first.
Perhaps, but the accidental setting off of, the stress, the annoyance, and the cost (and it is not an inconsiderable cost) of an alarm system makes it quite a bit less attractive.
Yea many ppl can't afford that $20 a month basic alarm coverage fee from ADT that includes free basic system installation and set up.
Oh.....wait.
See the truth of the matter, Alarm system is good.....alarm system + firearm of choice is much much better :)
Now the whole part of the thread about the US being the evil invading war monster....I'll just point at you and laugh a bit :) If we were half that bad we'd never land troops....just carpet bomb or perhaps tac nuke away our foes.
-
I can point to statistics that prove that seat belts and airbags have a real effect on survivability in a crash.
Causation !=Correlation.
I can and will say that every time you try to say something like that. It's really easy to dismiss evidence on that grounds.
Easy but wrong. And it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how science or statistics work.
If I point to statistics for crashes and tabulate the results where the only difference is whether or not people were wearing seatbelts, that's good evidence. Your statistics on the other hand were useless. Where was your table for Florida where everything else stayed the same but guns permits weren't given out?
-
Maybe I should just add the line "American and Proud to Be" in my sig then, what do you think? After all, its the truth.
A gun isn't good for just killing people you know. It makes a great visible threat as well. If someone pointed a gun at me, I would want to be somewhere else. A knife or baseball bat just aren't like that. A gun can persuade the guy to leave your house and drop what he stole in a much more direct and quicker way than a melee weapon.
-
I like having a choice in my methods of defense. Whether its a gun or an alarm system, I like to keep my options open.
And about Social Security, I wish it was never invented. I would be glad if that legalized Ponzi scheme disappeared. I'm one of those right-wing anti-government loonies you keep hearing about on the liberal media. Although I'm atheist, not Christian.
-
Maybe I should just add the line "American and Proud to Be" in my sig then
Good idea.
One thing you can do to maximize your safety is don't be stupid enough to move into a dangerous place to begin with, and move away if it is known to be dangerous or do research first before moving there.
Well then, that makes all of us with military families f*cked then, doesn't it?
I can find other ways to take you down if you try without my being lethal and risking getting in big trouble.
Self-defense will not get you a sentence in the U.S., provided that the force used, up to and including lethal force, is deemed merited by a jury.
Once again, a perfect example of a black and white train of thought, by you not thinking of other ways besides guns
I have though long and hard about my home defense. I have decided that a firearm is the most effective policy. Do not label me simply because I disagree with you.
That might change if we lose social security someday.
At which point I still can and will be proud to be an American. Social Security is a superflous, horribly expensive welfare program.
If people can get high powered guns illegally, they can get body armor and other stronger weapons too.
Body armor has a nasty tendency to not work very well when struck with multiple high power bullets, say... 5.56 mm? Those are legally acquired here. As well as a very nice stock Mosin Nagant Russian infantry rifle.
the criminal came prepared expecting you to have a gun
If he did, he will not bother to hear your story if he finds you. It becomes a 'shoot first, ask questions later' sort of thing.
a gun is a false sense of security.
It is only false if one is not properly trained in the utilization of said weapons.
And about Social Security, I wish it was never invented. I would be glad if that legalized Ponzi scheme disappeared. I'm one of those right-wing anti-government loonies you keep hearing about on the liberal media. Although I'm atheist, not Christian.
Hell yes!! But I do happen to be Christian, so double points for me :D.
-
Isn't social security... Giving money to the poor... very christian?
-
a gun is a false sense of security.
It is only false if one is not properly trained in the utilization of said weapons.
No, it is false because trained or not, the other guy may be just as trained or just as well armed. And the chances of him shooting at you go up drasticly if you yourself are holding a gun. In other words, you're giving him a reason to shoot, since you are a possible threat. A burglar is highly unlikey to shoot you if you're not a threat.
And while I'm sure you feel all badass with your big gun, all the feeling of badasness won't save you from a bullet in the head. Especially if there's two or more of them. (burglars that is - but it works for bullets too)
-
It isn't whether or not a gun is useful. It is whether or not we like having something we can do if a burglar breaks in. Being able to do something is better than letting him rob us blind.
-
Of course the argument is a bit pointless as most REAL burglars wait until you are out before they try to break in (even the stupid one who keep on trying to break in to my parents house)
-
It isn't whether or not a gun is useful. It is whether or not we like having something we can do if a burglar breaks in. Being able to do something is better than letting him rob us blind.
Here's something.
Select one or two very valubale items in your house adn ensure them.
Then when a burglar break in offer no resistance, in fact, be as helpful las possible.
Oh, and let the fact that you own those valubale items "slip" out. Make it look unintentional :drevil:
-
Well yes there are several ways to attempt tp prevent a robbery.
Simply placing an "Alarm sign" in your yard actually deters alot of common crooks.
Another method, cameras are of course a great means to discourage and record them, but many places sell "dummy cameras" that you merely run a wire to an indoor plug, install a battery for power fail back up....and all it does is light up a "power light". A crook doesn't know, so they move on to a less risky target.
But all this aside, there have been many cases of crooks simply kicking in a door and coming in with a family home. I simply refuse to ever allow the potential for me to be in a situation where I'm sitting hoping to god a crook doesn't harm my wife or kids, and trust me, IF, god forbid, I'm in that situation,.....I will not miss, and I will not be shooting to wound. If I can't reach a pistol, I will use any means I have to put the robber down, permanantly if my family is at risk. Make no mistake, I do not care for one's reasons for breaking into my home and threatening my family in anyway. Someone else's sad life story is meaningless at that point. I've had many a rough time in my life. I've had months where all my money when to rent, gas, and enough left to literally eat 3 packs of Ramen a day. I didn't steal a dime from anyone.
But that's me. The whole issue is what's right for everyone. Well guess what? Noone can make that choice but you. Noone on this board, or on the planet for that matter, can decide that for me. Neither can I decide it for you. The issue is what is my right to decide. Thankfully in the US I still have that right, and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Now keep in mind, I don't walk around town with a firearm. I can't have one at work regardless of any permits I might have. I don't go into areas of town (except for work) where I may feel the need to protect myself. I live in a fairly decent area, however as the saying goes, **** can happen anywhere, anytime. If you're willingly going into a dangerous area for reasons other than your job, it's your own damn fault.
-
No, it is false because trained or not, the other guy may be just as trained or just as well armed.
The exact same thing applies to every single facet of any skill. The fact that you have something that you are effectively trained in for defense does not make it a false sense of security.
It isn't whether or not a gun is useful. It is whether or not we like having something we can do if a burglar breaks in. Being able to do something is better than letting him rob us blind.
I agree.
How many times must I say that a gun isn't the only way.
How many times must I say that I have chosen a gun after lengthy deliberation? You may not agree, but I don't really care :D.
because I have confidence that I can defend myself if need be
Bah! False sense of security. He might be better than you!
I'm 26 and not once have I been in a sitaution where someone tried to pull a gun on me
Well, aren't you just a lucky b******.
I do not care for one's reasons for breaking into my home and threatening my family in anyway.
Exactly. If a person threatens my or my families safety, they have forfeited there's. If he threatens me with a gun, I will do more than threaten.
I don't walk around town with a firearm
My parents do. You would be surprised how many people congratulate you for that.
-
My parents do. You would be surprised how many people congratulate you for that.
Not really, most of my family, ....father, mother, brother, uncles, etc, have Conceal Carry Permits. I honestly haven't gotten one yet simply because it's of little use to me. I do security work (Install/service of access control, CCTV, etc) at several major universities and hospitals in VA which is regulated by Department of Criminal Justice Services. In order to carry during working hours (which for me can happen with a phone call) I not only need a Conceal Carry, but additional registration with DCJS, AND my company would have to have extra insurance on me simply based on my having the paper work allowing a firearm in the course of my job.
Meh, plus I gave up hunting and such due to lack of time, so it's really rather pointless for me to carry unless I'm out looking for a fight :) lol
-
Who cares if you care? I don't.
Given how you have been belittling my choices and doing everything but actually calling me a coward, I would have sworn you did.
For a Christian, you sure place a lot of value on your life.
Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I can't place value on my life. I choose not to unduly hasten my journey to the Lord. Being scared is a biological response to external stimuli. If my being perceives my body in mortal danger, it is natural to be scared. None of which answers what I was saying to you. You keep trying to tell me that the burglar may be better than I am at wielding a gun, but I was just telling you that he may be just as good or better than you are at your chosen method of defense.
Or maybe I never go to bars or dangerous places or look for a fight, like you seem to want to do, I guess.
:wtf: I'm 16. I can't drink. I generally try not to look for fights, they hurt. Whatever you seem to think I am, I'm most probably not. I have, however, been put in the unenviable position of being forced to defend my self.
How touching and poetic. Also, what makes you think you can hurt anyone? Talk is cheap. Talking like that does not scare me and probably no one else. If a person has a lot to lose, they should be more thankful instead of talking big, but I see people who have huge families and lots of friends but they are so used to it that they are not thankful and can't handle any loneliness. That ticks me off. I'm not saying you; I'm saying people in general. It weakens people emotionally to have too much and be too used to it.
You know, people generally don't respond to you in a kind manner if you continually insult them about their choices. What I get from this is that "So you can talk. Talk is cheap. I'm not afraid of you. Piss off."
Besides, you don't know me, and probably never actually will. I live with my dad and one younger sibling. My mom lives in Florida with my Step-dad. I fail to see why you even brought up that last point.
-
As a Christian, if someone shoots you, shouldn't you turn the uninjured side and let you shoot him again?
Or somesuch?
-
It is irresponsible to the rest of the community to allow him to escape and do the same again. :D Hooray loopholes!
-
You could at least try to make him use up as much ammo as possible first.
You're sixteen? Mature for sixteen. My compliments.
Did you know political orientation is strongly heritable in males, i.e. it has a very significant genetic component? But it doesn't assert itself until past age 20.
-
oh hey first we have a 16 year old list of american conservative talking points and now we are discussing whether giving pretty much everyone a chance to kill anyone is a good idea or not
-
Where was your table for Florida where everything else stayed the same but guns permits weren't given out?
OK, I'll look for something when I'll have the time.
But: where are the stats proving that a massive immigration of old people lowered the crime rate in FL and the US?
So far the theory of more guns = less crime has not been debunked in a scientific manner.
I could have a long range taser or non-lethal rubber bullets if needed (which I won't call a true gun). See? So many other ways to neutralize the threat that are effective without a bloody mess in my house, the guilt of taking a life, or the risk of getting put away forever. A win win situation. That negates the need of having a gun that kills.
Some of the post did make some sense, but:
Tasers are good when the enemy has no numerical advantage, since you can't tase 2 people with one Taser at one time.
Unless: *click* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT2EX07lQy8&feature=related)
No, it is false because trained or not, the other guy may be just as trained or just as well armed. And the chances of him shooting at you go up drasticly if you yourself are holding a gun. In other words, you're giving him a reason to shoot, since you are a possible threat. A burglar is highly unlikey to shoot you if you're not a threat.
And while I'm sure you feel all badass with your big gun, all the feeling of badasness won't save you from a bullet in the head. Especially if there's two or more of them. (burglars that is - but it works for bullets too)
I can guarantee that an intruder won't shoot you if he/she/it is already shot, or surrenders, or runs away... But do you have any proof for your statement? Any stats on how many armed homeowners get shot vs unarmed?
Isn't social security... Giving money to the poor... very christian?
Social Security is giving money to the government, last time I checked.
And giving money to the poor is Christian, and I happen to do it sometimes.
Body armor has a nasty tendency to not work very well when struck with multiple high power bullets, say... 5.56 mm? Those are legally acquired here. As well as a very nice stock Mosin Nagant Russian infantry rifle.
A Mosin for CQB??? Like isn't that a rather large and slow shooting gun?
Dude, buy an M4 or smaller for home defense. Even if you don't penetrate the body armor, you still have a good chance of breaking the guy's ribs (and will to fight) at such a small distance, even with a 9 mm pistol.
-
But: where are the stats proving that a massive immigration of old people lowered the crime rate in FL and the US?
Re-read my answer. I said that was a possible alternative explanation for Florida. I didn't attempt to confirm it in any way. Since you're claiming that you have data to support your argument it's up to you to prove that the data actually says what you claim it does. It doesn't of course because you have far too many variables and you're ignoring everything apart from an increase in carry permits.
So far the theory of more guns = less crime has not been debunked in a scientific manner.
True. But I wasn't trying to debunk it. I was pointing out severe flaws in your methodology. It's possible you are right about the effects of gun permits in Florida (I doubt it, but it is possible) but your data was basically worthless and I pointed out why. I do not need to find data to prove or disprove whether the influx of people into the state had more of an effect than gun permits. I simply need to point out that it is a factor you need to consider before you can claim that the only variable of any importance was the pervasiveness of concealed carry permits.
As I said before, if you want to argue with me based on a common sense approach to the discussion then that's fine. But if you are going to drag in statistics I'm going to question your methodology, sampling, controls (or lack thereof) and whether the conclusions you have drawn match the data you have presented. In this case they most certainly did not.
-
Body armor has a nasty tendency to not work very well when struck with multiple high power bullets, say... 5.56 mm? Those are legally acquired here. As well as a very nice stock Mosin Nagant Russian infantry rifle.
A bullet's "power" (:doubt:) is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.
Secondly, I really hope you aren't implying that Nagants take 5.56 x 45, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.
Finally, a rifle firing any kind of serious military-grade cartridge could easily shoot through your house and your neighbor's house and hit God knows what.
-
A bullet's "power" () is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.
It's determined by the length of the gun, amount of powder, and the result on the target is determined by the impulse and energy, while the relationship of impulse and energy is determined by mass (and influenced by the diameter)
According to my military training, 5,56 mm is weak against armored, and strong against unarmored targets.
-
But a direct and close shot will go right throough average body armor. Again though it's a combination of things that affect the penetrating power of a bullet. In thoery you could have a very small calibur round, if made out of a high density metal, fired through a long enough barrel with the proper rifling using a high amount of powder, and pierce the side of most light armored carriers.
Course we're talking some serious 2020+ stuff ....in theory :)
-
I really hope you aren't implying that Nagants take 5.56 x 45
Heck no, that's why I say "as well as." Nagants are 7.62 x 54 mm.
As for the CQB part, bayonets do more than just look cool :D. You are, however correct. I would use my dad's M1911 .45.
You're sixteen? Mature for sixteen. My compliments.
Thank you. And, I'm American. Double points!
Did you know political orientation is strongly heritable in males, *snip* But it doesn't assert itself until past age 20.
Yay! I'm abnormal! My dad's an old army major, and I get a lot of my political orientation from him. Maybe the fact that my mom doesn't live here changes it a little. :P
giving pretty much everyone a chance to kill anyone is a good idea or not
God already gave everyone that. Your hands, as High Max points out (:doubt:) can be more useful than the average person thinks.
Social Security is giving money to the government, last time I checked.
Social Security is the government providing a monthly (?) welfare check to American citizens over 65.
Tasers are good when the enemy has no numerical advantage, since you can't tase 2 people with one Taser at one time.
Unless: *click*
It only looks like a "slug." Slugs are useful only against one person, unless you get lucky. Buckshot tasers just seem impractical.
A bullet's "power" () is determined by the amount of powder in the cartridge, not it's diameter.
Yeah, but bigger bullets make bigger holes, bigger holes hurt more, hurting more makes the guy less likely to shoot back. Using the transitive property, therefore bigger bullets = guy less likely to shoot back.
Besides, have you ever heard one of those guns go off? Those things are LOUD!
But a direct and close shot will go right throough average body armor.
Indeed.
Powder is ancient tech. I hear they are developing mass drivers, laser tech, and electric guns that use electro-magnetism, but I doubt it will become the size required to be in hand held form for quite some time. It's time for a change, same with the ancient combustion engine that uses ancient fossil fuel (that is why planes and vehicles are noisy). What are we doing still using powder and fossil fuel when it has been used for over 100 years? Anything over 100 years is technically considered ancient. It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder. That is an 1800's method. Actually, physical projectiles (bullets) are an ancient method too. I hope it all gets fased out sooner more than later.
Umm, first of all, it's phase/nitpick. Secondly, just because something is "ancient" doesn't mean it needs to be replaced. For example, let's take a loot at pulleys. Pulleys are on of the five simple machines, and have been around, literally, since man learned how to tie a not around a branch. How often do you see pulleys still? Quite a few places. They use them in cranes, elevators, and other lifting devices. Do you propose we phase those out too?
What about the wheel?
It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder
.
Why? Is it sad we still use the wheel? Age of discovery is unimportant, age of update or renovation is. Guns are improved and modified all the time to keep them cutting edge.
-
Powder is ancient tech. I hear they are developing mass drivers, laser tech, and electric guns that use electro-magnetism, but I doubt it will become the size required to be in hand held form for quite some time. It's time for a change, same with the ancient combustion engine that uses ancient fossil fuel (that is why planes and vehicles are noisy). What are we doing still using powder and fossil fuel when it has been used for over 100 years? Anything over 100 years is technically considered ancient. It is sad we are still using all these old methods and tech, including powder. That is an 1800's method. Actually, physical projectiles (bullets) are an ancient method too. I hope it all gets fased out sooner more than later.
For that matter why are you using a computer ? It's been 73 years since it was invented!!!!
I love ppl like this.
Gun Powder's ancient. Yet very effective.
Combustion engine's ancient. Yet still effective for it's purpose.
Yes they have flaws, yes ppl are working on other means. No nothing truely effective across the board has been created up to the proper scale to be widely distributed.
Wait. Do you still use fire? That's seriously ancient.
-
I included fire as a joke :) I see you missed that.
Yes all those alternate engines are great, for an experimental development in progress. Hydrogen and Nuclear have a long way to go before it'll drive your car AND it'll be allowed due to safety issues. Imagine a two cars at 55+ mph impacting each other with either of those systems.
Solar and electric are still being worked on to remove flaws, but both aren't far away.
See the whole point here yet? You refer to current tech as ancient when there is no true replacement for that tech currently available in the quantity needed.
There's many new ideas being tested for a great many things, as there always have been. There's a reason some things stay around for decades though.
-
A third one? That link is getting old.
EDIT: Lofl, they redirected all links to that vid. The individual users didnt. Lofl, That is a good one. They should have picked a less harmless song to poisen everyones eyes and ears with tho...
-
Like I wouldn't reply to this.... :rolleyes:
Ok, here are some examples of why gun ownership is a good thing.*NOTE* These are likely to be subjective.
Most people that I have run into that are licensed for open or concealed carry, particularly the open carry, are some of the most in-control, balanced individuals I have ever had the pleasure to running into. They tend to be soft spoken, but never unassertive, or "weak".
Something I have noticed historically in the last 45 years or so, from watching old news and historical recordings, is that as "family" gun ownership and the culture of gun ownership has been attacked and beaten back like supposed rabid dog, gun related crime has gone up. Teaching a young person to responsibly hold and maintain a pistol or rifle teaches them to be confident and respectful in general. Going further back, despite popularization to the contrary, the "Wild West" was rather more civilized than what it is portrayed as. Gun ownership was and is an essential right, both for protection and survival.
Over all I think gun ownership is a positive thing.
Something to bear in mind about guns. If you make them illegal and take them away from citizens, the criminals who use such weapons will find a way to get them. Murderers will still kill people, just with knives or axes or ball bats, or they're bare hands.
Guns are like any other tool, albeit one which is designed for a particular purpose. The potential for harm lies not in the tool, but in the heart and mind of the wielder.
One thing that I think should happen is this, remove the growing stigma from gun ownership. Replace it with public awareness that gun owners are taking a responsibility onto themselves to handle and maintain they're weapons with public safety foremost in they're minds. Require basic maintenance and handling courses be taken BEFORE a license is issued.
In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.
I mean really, if I'm gonna rob a bank at gun point, am I gonna go charging in as readily as when several, many or all the persons in the bank could be packing heat?
-
Guns and the like will be around as long as they're practical. Until some type of body armor is developed that is immune to anything bullet-like, it's still gonna be the most cost-effective way of killing things for a very long time.
-
Has gun crime actually increased (more than we'd expect due to a growing population)? I'm not sure of that...
-
It might be caused by a more degerenate cultural change which spreads bad influences and ways of thinking like wild fire, more drug use influencing the actions of others, and maybe the weird preservatives and chemicals they put in certain foods making people act differently. Who knows?
Humans are, by nature, a destructive species. As for "Drugs" Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're talking about weed here, for gods sake it mellows people out. :rolleyes: As for other things, My old man has done meth and crack, and I can tell you it does NOT make you go insane and run around killing people. I'm not saying it's good, it's an addictive habit which drains your money, detaches you from the world and possibly shortens your life span, but it's not going to make you want to start killing people.
Now, as for the "weird preservatives" I have never heard anything like this before, although I can't say it would surprise me.
-
It might be caused by a more degerenate cultural change which spreads bad influences and ways of thinking like wild fire, more drug use influencing the actions of others, and maybe the weird preservatives and chemicals they put in certain foods making people act differently. Who knows?
But, um, 'bad influences and thinking' are down across the board, along with all sorts of negative indicators...
-
Guns don't kill people. People do.
What America has failed to realise that they are a nation of people who do kill. The pro-gun lobby constantly point to Canada and Switzerland as examples of countries where gun ownership is high and say "See! Guns != death"
The problem is that as a nation America can't be trusted with guns. And I say that as someone from a nation that also can't be trusted with them. Which is why the UK outlawed them. The UK is a nation full of belligerent people. Give everyone in the UK guns and we'd have as much gun crime as the US. Maybe more. People who otherwise wouldn't commit any crime would probably be shooting each other in the street over things that they'd simply get angry about and then walk away from as things are now.
Fortunately the people of the UK seem to by and large realise this and as a result there are no big arguments in favour of gun ownership from the general public.
The true cowardice in the situation is that pro-gun America refuses to accept this fact about themselves.
That's all well and fine in the UK, except in America, there is a Constitution that says the population is allowed the right to bare arms. The reasoning behind the desire is pretty sound, so I won't touch that, but any social libertarian or right-thereof is going to tell you that you punish the act, not the potential.
That's the problem here with too much freedom and a rude culture; more violent crimes. Funny thing about this country (USA) is you don't have the freedom to drive and ride in a vehicle without a seat belt (at least here in Oregon) and they have strict rules about what you can burn or certain other things on your own property, yet some of the bigger things like being sexually crazy and fighting in bars and carrying guns around is just fine. Now they are even debating on whether or not it is ok for a person with a permit to carry a gun on college campuses and some person was upset about not being allowed to even though he had a permit.
The only thing comparable in your list is seat belts. (You can't burn whatever you want because certain things have certain toxicities to them, and you can't confine smoke to your own ground property.) They instituted seat belts as a mostly nationwide law because people would get into minor car accidents and end up severely injured, or heavier accidents and end up dead when they'd otherwise be fine. This is a problem not only in itself, but financially as well. Think of insurance, lost labor, accrued post-mortem debt, etc. You could shallowly compare gun violence to pre-mandatory seat belt-era driving in terms bodily harm, but there's a key difference. The difference namely being that possessing firearms is an inherent right of self-defense. Not wearing your seat belt in your car is the anti-thesis of self defense. Being seat belt free is also not Constitutionally assured.
Also bare in mind that you're subjecting yourself to the popular government's rules whenever you choose to drive on the open road. They paved it, policed it, and set rules to it that you democratically (or your ancestors) approved when the bill passed in your respective State or National Congress. Part of the deal of them doing all that is you playing by the rules that you and/or your peers set up for the game. If you don't like the rules, you're free to start a popular referendum (depending on your State's legislative progress - otherwise lobby your congressman) to change them anytime.
TLDR: the 2nd Ammendment in its purest form is the right to self-defense equal in power of the government. This is a power balancing philosophy ingrained in the psyche of the United States as a nation and is not likely to ever truly go away. Also, stay away from Oakland, S. Central LA, New Orleans and Suburban DC and you'll be fine.
-
KT, the only thing I'd correct you on is the implied meaning of the Second Amendment.
At the time, the fledgling USA had just won a war of independence from British Empire, which had been started over said governments unfair taxation and overall heavy handedness toward her citizens in the colonies. The second amendment was put in place to placate(and rightly so IMO) the fear that the same thing would start up under a more local governance. By guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms in they're own defense, they were guaranteeing that the people would be able to revolt against bad government when such government became too overbearing to be dealt with any more.
Unfortunately, this power was severely weakened by subsequent governmental actions, including the Civil War, also known to some as the War Between the States. It was at that time, that the loose grouping of separate entities known as the United States of America became the United States of America. I put emphasis on that because up until the end of the war, each state had the right to individual action up to and including secession from the Union if they felt that the, until then, fairly weak Federal Government had begun to act not in they're best interest.
Regardless, the 2nd Amendment remains as a guarantee of the citizen's right to protect themselves from both criminal agressors and they're own government.
-
Please list the toxins that "they" put in my food.
-
Like I wouldn't reply to this.... :rolleyes:
Ok, here are some examples of why gun ownership is a good thing.*NOTE* These are likely to be subjective.
Most people that I have run into that are licensed for open or concealed carry, particularly the open carry, are some of the most in-control, balanced individuals I have ever had the pleasure to running into. They tend to be soft spoken, but never unassertive, or "weak".
Something I have noticed historically in the last 45 years or so, from watching old news and historical recordings, is that as "family" gun ownership and the culture of gun ownership has been attacked and beaten back like supposed rabid dog, gun related crime has gone up. Teaching a young person to responsibly hold and maintain a pistol or rifle teaches them to be confident and respectful in general. Going further back, despite popularization to the contrary, the "Wild West" was rather more civilized than what it is portrayed as. Gun ownership was and is an essential right, both for protection and survival.
Over all I think gun ownership is a positive thing.
Something to bear in mind about guns. If you make them illegal and take them away from citizens, the criminals who use such weapons will find a way to get them. Murderers will still kill people, just with knives or axes or ball bats, or they're bare hands.
Guns are like any other tool, albeit one which is designed for a particular purpose. The potential for harm lies not in the tool, but in the heart and mind of the wielder.
One thing that I think should happen is this, remove the growing stigma from gun ownership. Replace it with public awareness that gun owners are taking a responsibility onto themselves to handle and maintain they're weapons with public safety foremost in they're minds. Require basic maintenance and handling courses be taken BEFORE a license is issued.
In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.
I mean really, if I'm gonna rob a bank at gun point, am I gonna go charging in as readily as when several, many or all the persons in the bank could be packing heat?
QFT
-
In a lot of ways, by not wearing a seat belt, I think many are just hurting themselves
Kind of irrelevant. The point came up as an attempted refutation of gun crime statistics speculation.
And yet they put toxins in your food and it is always being emitted 24/7 from coal and oil.
Which also doesn't matter.
See the hypocricy of the rules?
Who cares? We were talking about gun rights/laws.
Guns help to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States (on a side note, it is still perfectly legal for a state to seceed from the union). Granted, it was used to ensure that in the event of government oppression the people would be able to reinstate their freedoms. However, it also served the purpose of providing a semi-trained militia. Right now, I'm gonna say that the National Guard does not qualify, as it's a government institution. We're America ever to be invaded, people would still be able to defend themselves in the absence of military aid (Red Dawn). There is a reason people are allowed to have guns, and gun laws restrict that.
I am the anti-threadjack!
-
Sooooo how many ppl realize that it's known that one of the reasons Japan didn't press on to Cali and a land invasion of the US after Pearl Harbor was the fact they knew they'd not only have to fight the military but also every single civilian as even those that didn't own a weapon could gain easy access to one?
And I do like the random jump from Gun Rights to "The Gov. doesn't make since and is trying to kill you" lol :) Good debate defense there, change topic.
-
Sooooo how many ppl realize that it's known that one of the reasons Japan didn't press on to Cali and a land invasion of the US after Pearl Harbor was the fact they knew they'd not only have to fight the military but also every single civilian as even those that didn't own a weapon could gain easy access to one?
And I do like the random jump from Gun Rights to "The Gov. doesn't make since and is trying to kill you" lol :) Good debate defense there, change topic.
Boy, this sounds exactly like the reason the US didn't want to invade Japan.
-
World Natural Health Organization
Holistic Medicine
Natural News
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2126bn8.jpg)
-
@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.
One word for you: Crusades
-
@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.
One word for you: Crusades
That was, um, pretty un-Christian too. Kind of like everything else in that general millennium.
-
In short, the only real way to reduce gun violence and crime, is to embrace gun ownership more than we do.
I really hope you never become a doctor, because if a patient gets rolled into the ER with an open gash, I only see you prescribing bandages and telling them to get out.
Except, what you don't realize is that open wound was probably infected by something before the patient got into the ER. Instead of going in and sanitizing the wound and prescribing medicine to keep the infection down, you just stopped the bleeding and assumed that solved the problem. That patient is going to suffer now from whatever is in his wound.
Same with gun violence in the US. The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).
So instead of just assuming guns are the panacea for the crime problem in the United States, something has to be done to treat the problem at its source. Improving the education system to keep kids in school and get them on to well-paying jobs after getting a degree keeps gang violence low. Decriminalizing drugs and not enforcing morality on the country eliminates the illegal drug trade and turns it instead into a legitimate enterprise with no need for exposing innocent people to criminal activities. Providing assistance for the poor and underdeveloped areas in the country raises people out of the need to resort to violence, as will reducing or eliminating the costs of healthcare.
Unfortunately, the people in the US that are very pro-bandage are typically very anti-medicine.
The Second Amendment provided for a means of the people to revolt against the government should its corruption become unbearable. They had a right to fear it too, with their experiences under the British. Yet, Thomas Jefferson, the archetypal anti-Federalist who demanded a Bill of Rights, saw the US electoral process as the exact revolution the country needed, not a bloodbath.
Unfortunately, most of the same people who are very pro-gun for the sake that it protects the country against tyranny, are the same people who reelected Bush and most Republicans in 2004. You know, the architects of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the ones who wiretapped and spied on Americans, the ones who actually ran the aforementioned corrupt government? Where was the armed revolution then? Guns do nothing to protect a people from tyranny when the gunowners themselves are too blind to see tyranny right on their doorstep.
So, in truth, one purpose of the Second Amendment was outdated just a little over ten years after its ratification.
Let's move onto the second purpose. Warlock claimed that the armed American populace deterred a Japanese invasion of the US mainland. Comparing the US populace fighting off an army armed with 1920, 1930, or 1940s weaponry and technology to the US populace armed with shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols fighting off an army armed with modern weaponry is unimaginable. It's not the same thing by a long shot. At that, American citizens don't have access to the same types of arms that reasonably effective insurgencies around the world have access to in large numbers--RPGs, assault rifles--to be an effective insurgency themselves.
So, summed up: most world militaries are far better armed than the average American citizen who has a gun. Second Amendment will protect Americans against invasion? No. That might have been true two hundred or even seventy years ago, but not anymore. The militias the Second Amendment provided for have been absorbed into the National Guard and the US military.
So, there you go: all three major purposes of owning guns in the US (besides for sport) are ineffective, outdated, and/or useless. Most of the rest of the developed world has realized this, why can't we?
@Scotty: I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet? Also, since you are Christian, I would think that you would try to do whatever you could to avoid killing, but your talk and actions seem to contradict Christian nature and the peaceful nature it talks about.
One word for you: Crusades
Word of advice: the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was one of the most corrupt and unchristian organizations the world has ever known. Also, the Crusades had little other purpose than to stop the members of their own religion from squabbling with and killing each other and to instead focus their rage on killing the infidels.
Replace "Crusades" with "jihad" there and I think it'll start sounding familiar...
-
I just want to point this out: Snyder makes the comment that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing crime, without addressing the part of the argument that gun control makes crime easier to solve. If guns are registered, the markings they leave on the shell will be more readily matched to the gun and the gun to the owner. How willing do you think people would be to shoot or kill someone if they knew the round could be matched back to the firearm?
There is a general paranoia in assuming that 'gun control' means violating the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Gun control does not mean banning/confiscating guns. It means knowing who owns which gun, who is stable enough to own a gun, and which guns are too destructive to be distributed to the general populace. Things get messier when automatics and psychologically unstable people are involved, and controlling those is for the general benefit of the population.
And equating not owning a gun to not taking responsibility for yourself is arrogant. Having a firearm to return fire with does not always work. If someone pulls a gun on you in a dark alley, you will not be able to draw your own firearm without inciting preemptive fire from your aggressor. In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull. And even if your aggressor wielded a knife, if they were within twenty feet of you, by the time you are ready and loaded they will have buried the blade in your chest. Firearms are not the answer to every problem, and owning one does not instantly make you self-responsible or brave. It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you. By owning a firearm, you have more responsibility for others around you. From a psychological standpoint, carrying a firearm means that you are more afraid--you feel threatened to the point of being willing to kill.
This presents an interesting predicament. Assume people start having good Sumeritan vibes and pull guns on muggers holding people at gunpoint. The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires, and thus what used to be small crimes can escalate into massive battles extremely fast, with high cost in health, property and life. Nuclear1's argument is entirely valid, America would suffer more from raising weapon ownership without addressing the core of the problem. The core is that people who do not have enough to survive in our culture may need to engage in crime to survive, and as such we should be focused on the causes of crime rather than the gun crime branch of it.
The nature of the situation is more fluid and complex than politics or most people have yet comprehended, and the problem of gun violence cannot be addressed in broad strokes as "more guns" or "less guns," and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant. What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms? The fact of the matter is that "smarter guns" is a more appropriate solution, but no one will realize this while they are convinced that gun control means a blanket ban on firearms.
-
Rather long post
Thanks, you've basically summed up what I was going for in my first post on this thread. :D America needs to treat what causes the violence in the first place. Simply sticking more guns on the street won't help.
-
I'll agree to that Kara. Wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, mental health is a four letter word to most everyone. Misunderstood and misinterpreted. The big problem with mental disorders and diseases is that the treatments for such as schizophrenia and manic/depressive disorder are almost as bad as the actual disorder itself. Powerful psychogenics that virtually shut down certain parts of the brain. A lot of Manic/Depressives especially have a very hard time staying on they're meds while they're in a manic phase.
In general, people need to feel that there is place for them.
I myself have been struggling with that very feeling for a while now.:sigh:
The socialization of people outside the "mainstream" from a mental health perspective is arguably more beneficial than dosing folk up with amphetamines. I'm not saying it's a cure-all and socialization doesn't mean sitting in a ****ing circle talking about my feelings. But people are less prone to act on they're fears and darker impulses if they have friends and family to help them and counsel them.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wxi3VyqHHI
-
I don't care if it matters to you or not. Isn't the gun talk getting boring to you yet?
No :D
It isn't up to you to remove them to be so-called responsible to the community.
Okay, so I should just let them kill me and possibly two-six other people before they are apprehended? No. Besides, I wasn't talking about being a vigilante. I was saying that if an armed robber barges into my house and threatens the safety of my famility, I will remove him, possibly in a lethal manner. Secondly, you seeming interpretation of Christian morality makes the military just about an abomination to that, yet no one seems to think of that. Notice that the Commandments only say not to commit murder (except King James). Killing in self-defense, or the defense of others is not condemned.
For the rest of you: I have a forensics tourney to go to, won't be back for a while. Just you wait.
-
The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).
And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection? Besides, why can't guns be an anti-septic bandage :p.
Improving the education system to keep kids in school and get them on to well-paying jobs after getting a degree keeps gang violence low.
I claim [citation needed]
Decriminalizing drugs and not enforcing morality on the country eliminates the illegal drug trade and turns it instead into a legitimate enterprise with no need for exposing innocent people to criminal activities. Providing assistance for the poor and underdeveloped areas in the country raises people out of the need to resort to violence, as will reducing or eliminating the costs of healthcare.
I'll address this in the order it appears.
1) Which people will resent the newfound taxes on, besides which, some drugs should never be legalized (crack/cocaine for instance). Also, legalizing something does not remove the root of that problem. Harmful, addictive drugs will still be entering the country.
2) There is no such thing as the need to resort to violence simply because someone is poor.
3) The costs of healthcare are what keep it running. If you eliminate the costs, where does the money come from?
*snip* the ones who actually ran the aforementioned corrupt government?
I suppose just because you don't agree with them you call them corrupt. Otherwise, you would also reference WWII, and the Japanese Internment Camps.
most world militaries are far better armed than the average American citizen who has a gun.
That would be because they are actually government funded militaries :rolleyes:.
Second Amendment will protect Americans against invasion? No.
Yes, it will, or rather, has the capacity to. Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.
I just want to point this out: Snyder makes the comment that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing crime, without addressing the part of the argument that gun control makes crime easier to solve. If guns are registered, the markings they leave on the shell will be more readily matched to the gun and the gun to the owner. How willing do you think people would be to shoot or kill someone if they knew the round could be matched back to the firearm?
Good point. Thank you.
In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull.
Only if the poor bloody idiot just stands there and brings his gun up. Besides, a gun can be loaded and still safe, as long as there is no bullet in the chamber. Going for speed, I can have a Walther .380 PPKS jacked and aimed in less than two seconds.
The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires
:lol: The best 'logical' response in occasions like this is to not commit crimes at all. I will give you that it will 'protect' the first one.
and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant.
And vice versa. Calling someone a coward for using firearms is arrogant as well.
What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms?
What of them? At 20 feet, a criminal has time to fire two shots before anyone could get to him. Makes martial arts pretty useless pretty fast.
Firearms are not the answer to every problem
Conversely, there are also not never an answer.
It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you.
A gun is a tool. By the same reasoning, carrying a hammer makes you foolish for thinking you can construct anything. A gun makes no one foolish. Granted, lots of people would be, but only if they carry and will try to use guns without proper training.
It shows more mental strength for one to control their emotions
You truly are a stoic. Sometimes, people are forced to act on their emotions, with no impartial observation. Would you sit there and watch someone get shot just because you were angry and had to objectively think about it before disabling the shooter?
And that can been seen as the cowardice I mentioned before and weak-mindedness.
Different things to different people. You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.
-
And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection?
Read the whole rest of my post.
1) Which people will resent the newfound taxes on, besides which, some drugs should never be legalized (crack/cocaine for instance). Also, legalizing something does not remove the root of that problem. Harmful, addictive drugs will still be entering the country.
2) There is no such thing as the need to resort to violence simply because someone is poor.
3) The costs of healthcare are what keep it running. If you eliminate the costs, where does the money come from?
1. People already resent taxes on tobacco. There's one harmful addictive drug we're already selling and making tax revenue off of.
2. Why do you think people rob banks? For the fun of it? People get desperate and do desperate things. Not saying all bank robbers are poor and have that as their primary reason, but the need for money can drive anyone to do anything, especially crime.
3. Your aforementioned taxes on drugs. By not spending billions of dollars every month on unpopular, unnecessary wars.
I suppose just because you don't agree with them you call them corrupt.
Actually, I call them corrupt because they repeatedly violated our personal freedoms to an unprecedented extent in the US. The Internment Camps were wrong, yes, and I was never defending them. But never at any time did FDR repeal the writ of habeas corpus or order spying on Americans.
That would be because they are actually government funded militaries.
This point makes no sense. What other military to expect us to be invaded by? It's also why we have our own military--not to police the world and enforce a Pax Americana but to defend our homeland.
Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.
We have:
1) a vast nuclear force
2) one of the largest militaries in the world
3) a large military alliance with some of the other world's largest militaries
4) two oceans surrounding us
Do you really need gun ownership to be another reason? This isn't the War of 1812 anymore.
-
I see no answer to my citation needed thingy. You have to have a working medicine before you can yell about us getting it wrong.
Why do you think people rob banks?
Perhaps I misspoke. There is no justifiable reason to rob a bank. If someone tells me that they robbed a bank because they were poor, it will not change my opinion of them. (C'mon High Max, work with me here) There is no need to resort to violence of any kind because you are poor. There are several government agencies and programs, whether I agree with them or not, that help people like that.
3. Your aforementioned taxes on drugs. By not spending billions of dollars every month on unpopular, unnecessary wars.
All right, lemme get this straight. You are in favor of nationalizing the health care industry (that's the only way the taxes can be used to support it). Tell me if I'm wrong. Please say yes, I really don't want to get into that argument.
But never at any time did FDR repeal the writ of habeas corpus or order spying on Americans.
He did, however, restrict the right to petition, to peaceably assemble, and the right to a trial by jury of all those people. Besides, he wasn't spying, he was just eliminating the "need" to by keeping them from doing anything wrong. :p
Pax Americana but to defend our homeland.
:lol: Pax Americana means literally American Peace or Peace in America. That is exactly what the military is for.
We have:
1) a vast nuclear force
2) one of the largest militaries in the world
3) a large military alliance with some of the other world's largest militaries
4) two oceans surrounding us
Do you really need gun ownership to be another reason?
Yes. The better question would be: Why restrict it? Better safe than sorry.
-
The country obviously suffers from violent crime (the aforementioned open gash), and you did put a cap on crime temporarily with allowing people to carry guns (or bandages), but the country is just going to die from the inside from escalation and even higher levels of crime (the infection).
And how the hell do you intend to remove the infection? Besides, why can't guns be an anti-septic bandage :p.
Guns would be the equivalent of radiation therapy, not antibiotics. "Let's hope it kills the problem before it kills you."
Yes, it will, or rather, has the capacity to. Gun laws precisely are the reason that it doesn't at this moment.
Okay, by that logic you're basically saying that people should have access to M-134's, Javelin anti-tank missiles, mortars and artillery. The point is that in order for the average citizen to effectively counter any invading force they'd need much more firepower than a hunting rifle or handgun could provide. And if military weapons were freely available to the public, much more destruction could be wrought by violent or unstable people. Seeing as we have the strongest military in the world, it is a moot point. People do not need to defend themselves from such an invasion, reducing this argument's potential benefit to the general populace. It would do more harm than good to give people unrestricted access to weapons that powerful when our nation is so secure.
In the few seconds it would take for you to raise the gun to a ready position and load (assuming you're being safe and carrying it unarmed), the opposing weapon would already be fired, and the bullet passing through your skull.
Only if the poor bloody idiot just stands there and brings his gun up. Besides, a gun can be loaded and still safe, as long as there is no bullet in the chamber. Going for speed, I can have a Walther .380 PPKS jacked and aimed in less than two seconds.
Even then, the cocking and unsafing of the weapon will give the perpetrator more than enough time to fire. It only takes a fraction of a second for the trigger to operate, much less time than chambering a round and unsafing the weapon. Forgive me if my firearm terminology is a wee bit lax.
The best logical response is to commit crimes in pairs or packs, with someone to watch your back while you fulfill your immoral and barbaric desires
:lol: The best 'logical' response in occasions like this is to not commit crimes at all. I will give you that it will 'protect' the first one.
You are of course assuming that people will follow the same logic that we do, which in many cases is limited by our circumstances. People are not the same and can make decisions that seem logical to them but are illogical to others. As such, if crime is their only remaining mode of income or survival, they will not be weaned from it so easily. Many criminals already live and operate in environments where they have acclimated to the possibility of gun violence and as such will not be averse to continuing illegal activities.
and calling people cowards for not siding with the "more guns means less crime" argument is arrogant.
And vice versa. Calling someone a coward for using firearms is arrogant as well.
I am not calling people cowards for using firearms. I am simply noting that in order to want a firearm for self defense a person must feel threatened, but feeling threatened does not equate to cowardice.
What of martial artists capable of defending themselves without resorting to firearms?
What of them? At 20 feet, a criminal has time to fire two shots before anyone could get to him. Makes martial arts pretty useless pretty fast.
But enter the realm of CQB, which is where a lot of crime occurs unless it's an assassination, they retain their effectiveness. Not all criminals are perfect gunmen or combatants and may give a martial-arts trained person their chance to strike. All modes of personal defense have their uses. The problem I have with the argument is that it advertises guns as the "cure all," without recognizing that they can be impractical.
Firearms are not the answer to every problem
Conversely, there are also not never an answer.
I never said they didn't have their uses. I'm merely remarking on the one-sided approach this article is taking to the subject.
It makes you foolish for thinking you can deal with anything that is thrown at you.
A gun is a tool. By the same reasoning, carrying a hammer makes you foolish for thinking you can construct anything. A gun makes no one foolish. Granted, lots of people would be, but only if they carry and will try to use guns without proper training.
The purpose of this statement is to show the one-sided approach of the article's argument. It never concedes that these problems can be solved in other, less violent manners. It advocates firearms as the solution to crime, without recognizing that firearms can be highly impractical in many situations, and is akin to assuming that a hammer can build anything. I am not saying that all people who carry firearms are foolish. I am remarking on the foolishness of the argument.
And that can been seen as the cowardice I mentioned before and weak-mindedness.
Different things to different people. You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.
In discussions such as this participants should avoid making the arguments personal or taking statements as an insult unless they are blatantly intended to be so. Making these assumptions can quickly make discussions unpleasant for all involved.
You continue to indirectly call me a coward, whether you realize it or not.
Or maybe I do realize it and I say how I feel. You clearly don't have enough confidence to go even a small portion of your life without a gun, apparently. You must have serious emotional trauma (of course I know on average that teenagers are much more likely to be emotionally out of control "unstable" or in other words "impulsive and lacking judgment" than older people since their brains are not fully developed and that is the same reason they are more likely to drive in a crazy fashion. I was reading about that being the cause of 16 year olds being the most dangerous drivers out there and my feeling and others feeling that they are too young to drive. Read this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-02-teens-cars-main-usat_x.htm) and I bet you are a gun fanatic who has posters of guns all around his room and maybe sleep hugging a gun like kids do with teddy bears in their arms and you have a smile with your eyes close. :D Thinking about it makes me smile. Do you have gun wallpaper too??? :lol: Does it say "shoot to kill" in red on the wall paper too? :nod: :rolleyes:
I think this fits you:
From a psychological standpoint, carrying a firearm means that you are more afraid--you feel threatened to the point of being willing to kill.
Oh sweet merciful crap I was too late.
-
I will agree with High Max on just one point: there are clearly a lot of teenagers in this thread. I haven't heard so much hypothetical violence since I was in high school!
But don't count me as as involved.
-
Raise your hand if you have ever drawn a weapon (specifically, a firearm) on another human being.
Especially those of you apparently licensed to, or otherwise inclined to carry one. Although, believe it or not, even the liberals occasionally arm themselves...
Most of the cops I know take "protect and serve" very seriously. They are trained. They generally know when to fire, or better yet NOT fire their weapons. So to the article, yes, I expect them to protect me and my neighbors, and frankly, so do they. That's the oath they swear when they put the badge on.
This is an interesting legal review of the 2nd amendment, not sure I agree with it all, but good read:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
I carry a sidearm occasionally, by the way, and I am not a policeman. People without training brandishing weapons scares the **** out of me. These things are brutal, dangerous tools, meant pretty much expressly for killing human beings. Lots of good reasons to carry a weapon. Not sure I am seeing a lot of reasoned responses in the vein of those good reasons.
On a sarcastic note, we all had guns in the 1800's. It wasn't called the "Wild West" for nothing.
-
Just read in the paper that a guy in Pittsburgh killed three cops yesterday. There was another shooting the same day in Washington where a dude killed his five kids and himself. Yesterday's paper, in the article about the previous morning's Binghamton New York shooting where the person killed thirteen people plus himself in an immigrant services center, said that (including that one) the recent string of multiple shootings has left forty four people dead all over the country in the past month: ten plus the shooter in Samson Alabama, four cops plus the gunman in Oakland California (which was the only thing in the news around here for a week), five plus the shooter in Santa Clara California, and eight at a nursing home in North Carolina. So including yesterday's. the past month's total for rampage shootings alone in my country is sitting at around fifty two. Not worse than, say, Iraq, but probably not that much better either.
I know people love weapons, and I admit that I did find it pretty thrilling in an awe-inspiring, terrifying sort of way the couple times I fired a gun back when I was a kid, but can we at least do something about the whole criminals outgunning law enforcement thing? Both of the incidents where cops got killed were by dudes with assault rifles (the Oakland shooter killed two officers with a handgun during a routine traffic stop and then two SWAT cops with an AK-47 at his house, and the Pittsburgh guy had body armor too). Police are not soldiers in an occupied territory and should not have to deal with that sort of thing. In addition to the terrible direct damage they can do, making this type of firepower easily accessible to the bat**** crazy elements of our society makes even the best cops more likely to screw up, which only adds more fuel to the fire.
And what the hell does anybody need an assault rifle for? Modern insurgencies against our own occupying forces seem to have much more success with bombs rather than guns, and if the Russians/Chinese/Mexicans/Shivans/Québécois invade, I think they'll at least bring tanks. Maybe even mechs (one can only hope). Anyway, baseball's return today should remind us that our national pastime is not headshots, but this month still sucks ass. Go A's.
-
The guy in Pittsburgh who killed three cops did so because he believed Obama was going to take away the right to bear arms.
Which goes to show that sometimes gun-nut arguments are genuinely dangerous rather than lovably kooky.
-
You do realise that the pro-gun lobby are simply going to say that the situation wouldn't have been as bloody if everyone carried guns?
-
You do realise that the pro-gun lobby are simply going to say that the situation wouldn't have been as bloody if everyone carried guns?
Dang, beat me too it. ;)
But seriously and honestly, how much shorter would it have been if even one of the people there had a gun to defend themselves with? All people do now is scream and run away, not much stopping it there.
The guy in Pittsburgh who killed three cops did so because he believed Obama was going to take away the right to bear arms.
Which goes to show that sometimes gun-nut arguments are genuinely dangerous rather than lovably kooky.
Which goes to show that some gun-nuts are acutally nuts, not that the argument is bad.
making this type of firepower easily accessible to the bat**** crazy elements of our society makes even the best cops more likely to screw up, which only adds more fuel to the fire.
Making anything available to the bat**** crazy elements of our society makes things worse. Anyway, that doesn't seem to me like the cops screwing up.
It wasn't called the "Wild West" for nothing.
Umm, yeah, it just about was for nothing
Wild West not that Wild (http://kottke.org/09/02/wild-west-not-that-wild)
Okay, by that logic you're basically saying that people should have access to M-134's, Javelin anti-tank missiles, mortars and artillery.
Not exactly. The latter three are forms of explosives, and not guns. The M-134 is a type of vehicle mounted weapon. I draw the line at explosives and mounted/emplaced weapons.
the cocking and unsafing of the weapon will give the perpetrator more than enough time to fire. It only takes a fraction of a second for the trigger to operate
Once again, only if the poor bloody idiot doesn't get his ass out of the way. Average reflex time for a 20 year old-male in good physical condition is about .35 seconds, the time it takes to fire a weapon purely from reflexes without aiming is .45 seconds approximately. Half a second is plenty of time to be out of the way if he doesn't know which way you are going to go. Time climbs exponentially after that, with aimed discharge at about three seconds after initial movement.
I am not calling people cowards for using firearms.
Sorry, seems I forgot to whom I was talking. High Max has come out and said it a few times this thread.
Exhibit A:Or maybe I do realize it and I say how I feel.
I'm merely remarking on the one-sided approach this article is taking to the subject.
Amazing! He's actually referring to the start of the argument! I don't think I ever read that thing in the first place, and just jumped in on page three or four.
@Scotty: You sure are persistent.
Why, thank you :D.
You must have serious emotional trauma (of course I know on average that teenagers are much more likely to be emotionally out of control "unstable" or in other words "impulsive and lacking judgment" than older people since their brains are not fully developed and that is the same reason they are more likely to drive in a crazy fashion.
Possibly, though I doubt it. I've never really though of myself as unstable. As for the driving comment, I get people pissed at me all the time for actually going the speed limit, not over.
I bet you are a gun fanatic who has posters of guns all around his room and maybe sleep hugging a gun like kids do with teddy bears in their arms and you have a smile with your eyes close. Thinking about it makes me smile. Do you have gun wallpaper too??? Does it say "shoot to kill" in red on the wall paper too?
And I wouldn't be surprised if your room were a stark, sterile white with a meditation cushion in the middle of the floor. :D. But seriously, I may be a conservative and in favor of gun rights/availability, but that doesn't mean I want to go out an kill someone just because a gun sounds cool when it discharges. I posses a .22 long rifle and an M14 carbine. My room is a nice shade of blue-green, no wallpaper to speak of.
Semi-Quote: From a psychological standpoint, carrying a firearm means that you are more afraid--you feel threatened to the point of being willing to kill.
Think that if you want. I prefer being ready in the event that I am threatened to such an extent. Does that make someone learning a martial art afraid as well?
-
You do realise that the pro-gun lobby are simply going to say that the situation wouldn't have been as bloody if everyone carried guns?
Dang, beat me too it. ;)
But seriously and honestly, how much shorter would it have been if even one of the people there had a gun to defend themselves with? All people do now is scream and run away, not much stopping it there.
Given that one of them managed to kill two SWATs who obviously have good weapons and better training than 99% of citizen gun owners I very much doubt the outcome would have been different.
-
One thing to note, as you read all the "kills by wacko with gun" new articles, how many of those were legally owned firearms.
Criminals having illegal weapons blows any reasonable gun control concepts out of the water.
-
Pax Americana means literally American Peace or Peace in America. That is exactly what the military is for.
I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
Same thing as the medicine and bandage analogy on a global scale.
-
Next time I will bold the "Sarcasm" part so its clearer.
For the record, note the explicit use of the word "Homicide" rather than "killed" in your link ;)
Yes, that is sarcasm again.
So Scotty, what kind of pistol do you carry and why do you carry it?
-edit-
Never mind, missed a whole paragraph in the above post. You say you have an M-14 (nice, been considering one of those) and a .22 LR (I assume a rifle chambered for 22LR, but maybe you have a Ruger or S&W target pistol).
Out of curiousity, if my assumption is correct, why don't you own and carry?
-edit2-
Interesting study I ran across while searching for firearm related fatality statistics (mostly the Wild West reference, but Google of course takes me on fun little rides now and then).
http://www.wvdhhr.org/whatsnew/firearms/index.htm
-
You do realise that the pro-gun lobby are simply going to say that the situation wouldn't have been as bloody if everyone carried guns?
Dang, beat me too it. ;)
But seriously and honestly, how much shorter would it have been if even one of the people there had a gun to defend themselves with? All people do now is scream and run away, not much stopping it there.
Given that one of them managed to kill two SWATs who obviously have good weapons and better training than 99% of citizen gun owners I very much doubt the outcome would have been different.
Yeah, this.
-
Given that one of them managed to kill two SWATs who obviously have good weapons and better training than 99% of citizen gun owners I very much doubt the outcome would have been different.
Yeah this is what I was trying to get at with the assault rifle cop killer angle. Police have a responsibility to make sure their target is the right man before firing, and before that they have to try to arrest him. Criminals are under no such restriction. The Oakland guy ambushed the SWAT team, firing through the closet door where he was hiding. Similarly in Pittsburgh the guy just waited for the unsuspecting cops to come to his door and then opened up on them. In each case their access to weapons that belong in a warzone let them quickly kill multiple officers (all of whom had guns and presumably acceptable reaction time and training) before surrendering (Pittsburgh) or dying in a hail of bullets (Oakland).
The purpose of these assault rifles is to allow a single person to take out as many enemies as possible; they are more likely to kill their target and more likely to cause collateral damage and unintended casualties than the guns used by police, hence why regular cops don't use them. Letting citizens own automatic weapons is not "leveling the playing field" or protecting our freedoms, it is overempowering the armed individual in relation to both his peers and the people that have actually taken on the responsibility to protect us.
edit: I should note that people actually aren't allowed to own full automatics if they weren't registered before a certain date in the 80s I think, though rifles that were originally designed as selective fire and are now only issued to the general public as semi automatic are easily converted to full after being legally sold to drug runners, gang bangers, freedom fighters etc.
-
Criminals having illegal weapons blows any reasonable gun control concepts out of the water.
But where do you think that criminals get these illegal weapons from?
-
I read through the recent pages of this thread with slight amusement and on the other hand, slightly terrified.
US is different from Europe, and even the rest of Europe is very different from Scandinavia. I haven't even heard of pick-pockets or other kinds of stealing on the streets nationwide for a long time. What is this concept of "street crime" that you are talking about? Why does it exist?
Violent crimes though, are getting more common around here. They tend to use knives a lot more, but there are some black market arms around also. But Southern Sweden sounds a lot worse. There are actually quite a lot of immigrants in there. If it is due to them, I think the better strategy for taking all kinds of immigrants would have been to split them around the country to become swedenized in rural areas. Unfortunately, EU seems to think that this kind of strategy that is used here is basically trampling of the immigrant rights.
Something like that could have happened in US also.
Mika
-
I definitely blame America's gun problems on immigrants. Look at the stats for the 15th century. No immigrants, no gun crime. :p
-
Violent crimes though, are getting more common around here. They tend to use knives a lot more, but there are some black market arms around also. But Southern Sweden sounds a lot worse. There are actually quite a lot of immigrants in there. If it is due to them, I think the better strategy for taking all kinds of immigrants would have been to split them around the country to become swedenized in rural areas. Unfortunately, EU seems to think that this kind of strategy that is used here is basically trampling of the immigrant rights.
I think the situation here is even worse. That's why certain politicians wanted to react, but the EU accused new policies in terms of immigrations as racist attempts to get rid of those unlucky individuals.
The problem is that anything against immigrants with bad intentions is to be pointed out as the direct consequence of racism towards immigrants in general.
-
Here's a spiffy quote from the study linked previously
A 1994 CDC study revealed that the rate of homicide among all 15-to-19-year-old males in the nation increased by 154% (from 13.0 to 33.0 deaths per 100,000 15-to-19-year-old males) between 1985 and 1991; firearm-related homicides accounted for 97% of this increase (6).
I find it ironic that this is the age group most impacted by a lack of fathers in the home. With no major adult male influence in they're lives, of course they're going to behave like the criminals glorified on the news and over the top protagonists in action movies. They don't know any better.
-
So Scotty, what kind of pistol do you carry and why do you carry it?
I'm fairly certain that I can't carry a pistol, at least, not in public. Nor can I actually own one until I move out of my house. Apparently, it is illegal in Kansas for a minor to posess a pistol because it "raises the chances of domestic violence." However, my dad has a Walther .380 PPKS, an M1911 .45, a Ruger .22, and a Jennings .22. Take your pick, but I would choose the PPKS because I can have that one loaded and ready to fire in around two seconds.
My rifle is a ruger bolt-action.
if my assumption is correct, why don't you own and carry?
Kansas gun laws. :doubt:
What is this concept of "street crime" that you are talking about? Why does it exist?
Oh, to live in such a place where guns might never be used in self-defense on the streets.
With no major adult male influence in they're lives, of course they're going to behave like the criminals glorified on the news and over the top protagonists in action movies. They don't know any better.
Being in that age group, I would be inclined to resent that if it weren't regrettably true. I am fortunate at least to be able to live with my dad.
-
Criminals having illegal weapons blows any reasonable gun control concepts out of the water.
But where do you think that criminals get these illegal weapons from?
Obviously from a law abiding citizen that owns a gun legally.
Wait......
No that's not right.
Seriously. Think about it a second man. Even if they outright make owning all firearms illegal, criminals can still get them. You think illegal drugs hit the streets fast and make a huge profit for criminals? Ban firearms and see how fast that same market turns around.
Idea: How about instead of more and more reasons to restrict firearms and make the general citizen think "Guns are bad and hurt people!" we ...oh I donno, ....educate folks about firearms safety?
Look at the number of children (including teens here) that get shot by finding daddy's gun in the closet hidden in a box like an old forgotten Christmas gift. They didn't know anything more than it's an awesome version of that bright orange plastic toy they have. (On average, yes I'm generallizing.)
I was taught about firearms since a very young age. I learned how to shoot before I was ten. I personally and legally owned several firearms, from 12 guage shotgun, .22LR pistol and rifle, to a few custom handmade CS Richmond replica blackpowder weapons by age 18. Then I was trained by the military on even more advanced weapons.
Growing up I could literally toss a pingpong ball blindly about my home and hit no less than 5 firearms. Not once did I concider doing something stupid with them. Why? Because I knew better. I knew just how deadly they could be. I knew just how much trouble they could be.
I have this arguement with my wife whenever we discuss children. She was raised no where near a firearm in her life. I refuse to have a child, male or female, that I can't teach how to safely use a firearm and how to safely leave them the hell alone.
It's something that was dropped sometime in the past. Firearms used to be something everyone was taught about, now most are taught to fear them.
-
Criminals having illegal weapons blows any reasonable gun control concepts out of the water.
But where do you think that criminals get these illegal weapons from?
Obviously from a law abiding citizen that owns a gun legally.
Wait......
No that's not right.
Seriously. Think about it a second man. Even if they outright make owning all firearms illegal, criminals can still get them. You think illegal drugs hit the streets fast and make a huge profit for criminals? Ban firearms and see how fast that same market turns around.
Idea: How about instead of more and more reasons to restrict firearms and make the general citizen think "Guns are bad and hurt people!" we ...oh I donno, ....educate folks about firearms safety?
Look at the number of children (including teens here) that get shot by finding daddy's gun in the closet hidden in a box like an old forgotten Christmas gift. They didn't know anything more than it's an awesome version of that bright orange plastic toy they have. (On average, yes I'm generallizing.)
I was taught about firearms since a very young age. I learned how to shoot before I was ten. I personally and legally owned several firearms, from 12 guage shotgun, .22LR pistol and rifle, to a few custom handmade CS Richmond replica blackpowder weapons by age 18. Then I was trained by the military on even more advanced weapons.
Growing up I could literally toss a pingpong ball blindly about my home and hit no less than 5 firearms. Not once did I concider doing something stupid with them. Why? Because I knew better. I knew just how deadly they could be. I knew just how much trouble they could be.
I have this arguement with my wife whenever we discuss children. She was raised no where near a firearm in her life. I refuse to have a child, male or female, that I can't teach how to safely use a firearm and how to safely leave them the hell alone.
It's something that was dropped sometime in the past. Firearms used to be something everyone was taught about, now most are taught to fear them.
QFELT!
As with most issues that are so divisive, education is the answer.
-
But where do you think that criminals get these illegal weapons from?
Obviously from a law abiding citizen that owns a gun legally.
Wait......
No that's not right.
Actually it is. Many of the guns come from theft of lawfully owned weapons.
Seriously. Think about it a second man. Even if they outright make owning all firearms illegal, criminals can still get them. You think illegal drugs hit the streets fast and make a huge profit for criminals? Ban firearms and see how fast that same market turns around.
Not a huge problem here in the UK. The money is still in drugs because only career criminals want illegal guns while there are lot of people who buy drugs but aren't career criminals.
Idea: How about instead of more and more reasons to restrict firearms and make the general citizen think "Guns are bad and hurt people!" we ...oh I donno, ....educate folks about firearms safety?
That's better that doing nothing if you're unwilling to have gun control laws. I don't think it's a solution in the slightest but it would definitely be an improvement on what you have now.
But I'm yet to see anyone do it in America. It's all very well asking for education but who's actually doing anything about it? Who's going to pay for it? Would you accept higher taxes in return for it? Or do you expect the average citizen to be the one to do it? Cause that's not going to work. The responsible citizens will do it and the irresponsible ones won't. Which is no damn change from the situation we have now.
-
That sort of education should be institutionalized.
Unfortunately, that means (to me) more regulation (or rather, more consistent, which implies federal) on legal gun ownership.
I think safety and education should be the drivers for "gun control" the crime argument is a red herring for both sides.
So is the "guns don't kill people" line, pure bull****.
If more of the regulation debate was in the theme of:
Because I knew better. I knew just how deadly they could be. I knew just how much trouble they could be.
...this would be a much different debate.
Both the Liberal whackos and the NRA nutjobs go for the crime argument because it scares people. Turns what could be a sensible conversation into fear-mongering.
Asinine.
These are tools, they are not going away. The world sucks and there will be people and animals that want to kill you, destroy your land, hurt your family. There ARE reasons to own (and carry) weapons, and many of those reasons include people (including Americans) sucking.
We have license for cars, planes, trucks, massive, dangerous tools that if they are mis-used people get hurt and die. none of those are made for the express purpose of depriving life. Guns are made to kill. You should be qualified to operate it before you can exercise your "right" to carry it.
-
Does anyone else find it disturbingly amusing that the people who want gun education are the very people who think the only form of sex ed that should be taught is abstinence?
-
Well let's not assume that both groups of people are the same.
I will agree that there is going to be quite a large overlap between pro-gun and abstinence groups but there are plenty of otherwise fairly liberal democrats who own guns too. The whole of America has a hard on for guns.
That sort of education should be institutionalized.
Unfortunately, that means (to me) more regulation (or rather, more consistent, which implies federal) on legal gun ownership.
Which is the exact reason it won't happen. No one wants to pay for it.
I think safety and education should be the drivers for "gun control" the crime argument is a red herring for both sides.
While I feel that having safety and education about guns would probably help I doubt that it can ever be a solution. America will never get the gun deaths rate down to the level seen in other more restictive countries no matter how much they spend on education.
Both the Liberal whackos and the NRA nutjobs go for the crime argument because it scares people. Turns what could be a sensible conversation into fear-mongering.
Asinine.
These are tools, they are not going away. The world sucks and there will be people and animals that want to kill you, destroy your land, hurt your family. There ARE reasons to own (and carry) weapons, and many of those reasons include people (including Americans) sucking.
Hang on a sec, aren't you going right back to trying to justify gun ownership as a response to crime in that last statement? No one is talking about taking them away from the army, navy and air force so the only people you'd need a gun to defend yourself against are criminals or your own government (and saying that you need guns to defend yourself against your government becoming totalitarian is an even more asinine scare tactic than talking about crime).
We have license for cars, planes, trucks, massive, dangerous tools that if they are mis-used people get hurt and die. none of those are made for the express purpose of depriving life. Guns are made to kill. You should be qualified to operate it before you can exercise your "right" to carry it.
I 100% agree with that sentiment even if I disagree over who should have that right.
-
I just want to point this out: Snyder makes the comment that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing crime, without addressing the part of the argument that gun control makes crime easier to solve. If guns are registered, the markings they leave on the shell will be more readily matched to the gun and the gun to the owner. How willing do you think people would be to shoot or kill someone if they knew the round could be matched back to the firearm?
That would require criminals to be able to own guns. In the US if you have a criminal record, you can't own a gun.
In Chicago, noone can register hanguns (which makes it theoretically impossible to have one). Guess what the main tool used for murders is in that city.
You are of course assuming that people will follow the same logic that we do, which in many cases is limited by our circumstances. People are not the same and can make decisions that seem logical to them but are illogical to others.
There goes the argument about criminals not shooting unarmed people, because it isn't logical for the anti-gun crowd.
....
The purpose of these assault rifles ...
...
edit: I should note that people actually aren't allowed to own full automatics if they weren't registered before a certain date in the 80s I think, though rifles that were originally designed as selective fire and are now only issued to the general public as semi automatic are easily converted to full after being legally sold to drug runners, gang bangers, freedom fighters etc.
Well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
....educate folks about firearms safety?
That is a winner IMHO.
But aren't schools in the US too busy with sexual education?
P.S. Speaking of the Second Ammendment and stopping foreign invasions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IeEa8tqUkE
-
But aren't schools in the US too busy with sexual education?
No, they're too busy collapsing due to lack of funding among other things.
-
Lack of funding? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Funding
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency).
-
2005 - A lot can change in 4 years.
-
Hang on a sec, aren't you going right back to trying to justify gun ownership as a response to crime in that last statement?
Nope, it may be *A* reason, its far from *THE* reason.
And I meant to post more, but work got in the way, so it may have been a half finished thought :)
If you are trained, you may be able to prevent or mitigate individual crimes. If you are untrained, you are much more likely to contribute negatively to any one critical incident. Not to mention the whole "animals" caveat ;)
-
Maybe. Maybe not. Most of the crazies who go on shooting rampages were also trained. Not to mention I shudder to think what would start happening to the crime statistics if the criminals were also trained.
-
Does anyone else find it disturbingly amusing that the people who want gun education are the very people who think the only form of sex ed that should be taught is abstinence?
Well I donno about the rest of the ppl that agreed about gun education but I'm all for teaching kids everything about sex. I'm all for sex before marriage, won't buy a car without a test drive, why marry for life without one? :D In fact my wife and I dated for a year, then lived together for 2 years before we married. We both agreed to try it out first sort of speak.
Oh and as for who'll pay for the education, ..... well start simple.
To get a Driver's License you must take a training course. Now granted this is typically a part of public education, how ever ppl wanting it before their school's set time can pay for it.
Do the same with guns. You already need to register to buy one, why not simply have a training session, issued card, and a mandatory renewal every few years? Set a reasonable price and bang there you go.
Like i said. Start simple. We can't and won't fix the problem in a month, or even a year, and doubtfully in a decade.
-
But aren't schools in the US too busy with sexual education?
No, they're too busy collapsing due to lack of funding among other things.
Lack of funding? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Funding
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency).
2005 - A lot can change in 4 years.
But it hasn't. The problem with education spending in the USA is that it's not spent correctly. The statistic is $11,000 per student, but from what I can tell, less than a quarter of that actually reaches a level to where it would actually benefit the students. The vast majority of the money, from what I can tell, is spent at the administrative level for administrative things. In most districts the teachers are forced to resort to purchasing materials for they're use with they're own meager pay. For instance, here in Alabama, we have 67 counties most with between 1 and 3 cities with more than 5000 people living in them. But, we have somewhere like 110 separate school districts who are all taking monies from the general fund and are completely and totally independent from each other.
In truth, it's like pretty much everything else that is run by the government, there's mishandling and corruption at every level so the people the program is supposed to benefit never really see any benefit, but the government can point and say "We're trying, we're helping you!" and thus get reelected ad infinitum.
Apologies, had to get that straight. We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument. :D
-
Well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0
Ah, I've been lead astray by the sensationalist media again. Must have been miscommunicated somewhere in the recent batch of stories about smuggling US arms into Mexico (or I just dreamed it or something), but I will further amend to my previous post that the number of fully automatic rifles on the street is definitely not a large percentage of total firearms. Though everyone in Die Hard has one so I dunno where this dude is getting his facts from. It's probably cause Die Hard was from the 80s. Anyway, that's good that most of the rifles in the hands of criminals are merely semi automatic, but sadly all those people they killed are still just as dead.
-
Not to mention I shudder to think what would start happening to the crime statistics if the criminals were also trained.
Hardly a reasoned response ;)
No room for the possibility that a world can exists with weapons?
-
Yea have to love that rational process eh? Guns = Bad must remove all guns. :nervous:
Good thing the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant us Freedom to bear arms, it only protects that freedom we always have. :)
Though the true thing to fear: Taxes on ammo and firearms.
-
Ah, I've been lead astray by the sensationalist media again. Must have been miscommunicated somewhere in the recent batch of stories about smuggling US arms into Mexico (or I just dreamed it or something), but I will further amend to my previous post that the number of fully automatic rifles on the street is definitely not a large percentage of total firearms. Though everyone in Die Hard has one so I dunno where this dude is getting his facts from. It's probably cause Die Hard was from the 80s. Anyway, that's good that most of the rifles in the hands of criminals are merely semi automatic, but sadly all those people they killed are still just as dead.
I've read a couple stories about that lately, while I don't remember the exact numbers, it goes more/less like this:
There were 10 000 illegal firearms confiscated by Mexican cops. Of these, 3000 were traceable, and 2700 were traced into the USA. The media made the news look like:
Of 3000 traced illegal weapons in Mexico, 2700 came from the US, which makes 90% of their guns coming from us (I've also heard that mainstream US media never said much about the untraceable guns, making it sound like the US being responsible for Mexican gangs having guns).
Now if anyone wants an interesting story, I could try to find some stuff about Mexico, where drug lords use heavy machineguns, grenades and even RPG's in their battles against cops and other drug lords.
As for Hollywood and Facts- can anyone find me that MiG-28 Tom Cruise shot down in Top Gun?
-
As for Hollywood and Facts- can anyone find me that MiG-28 Tom Cruise shot down in Top Gun?[/color]
Northrop F-5s, nothing more.
-
Ah, I've been lead astray by the sensationalist media again. Must have been miscommunicated somewhere in the recent batch of stories about smuggling US arms into Mexico (or I just dreamed it or something), but I will further amend to my previous post that the number of fully automatic rifles on the street is definitely not a large percentage of total firearms. Though everyone in Die Hard has one so I dunno where this dude is getting his facts from. It's probably cause Die Hard was from the 80s. Anyway, that's good that most of the rifles in the hands of criminals are merely semi automatic, but sadly all those people they killed are still just as dead.
I've read a couple stories about that lately, while I don't remember the exact numbers, it goes more/less like this:
There were 10 000 illegal firearms confiscated by Mexican cops. Of these, 3000 were traceable, and 2700 were traced into the USA. The media made the news look like:
Of 3000 traced illegal weapons in Mexico, 2700 came from the US, which makes 90% of their guns coming from us (I've also heard that mainstream US media never said much about the untraceable guns, making it sound like the US being responsible for Mexican gangs having guns).
Now if anyone wants an interesting story, I could try to find some stuff about Mexico, where drug lords use heavy machineguns, grenades and even RPG's in their battles against cops and other drug lords.
As for Hollywood and Facts- can anyone find me that MiG-28 Tom Cruise shot down in Top Gun?
The Mexican cops in all likelihood sell a lot of the untraceable weapons they confiscate.
-
Not to mention I shudder to think what would start happening to the crime statistics if the criminals were also trained.
Hardly a reasoned response ;)
Seriously though, you think that education in firearms for children (which would include criminals after all) wouldn't result in better informed, better trained criminals?
-
I like how the whole of Singapore's military is basically made up of teenagers driving tanks...
-
Seriously though, you think that education in firearms for children (which would include criminals after all) wouldn't result in better informed, better trained criminals
Because if its a requirement of licensing, the criminals will not bother to license themselves, much like today :)
That whole "if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them" argument is probably the only NRA platform I agree with in the current rhetoric.
-
The idea that the armed populace is a polite populace only works if people actually were rational actors.
Turns out that they aren't and can do impulsive and destructive things even without firearms. The idea that more firearms could somehow prevent human beings from being illogical jackassess who can quickly resort to violence if pressed enough is about as realistic as the idea that Gandalf the Grey is in your room, teaching you how to shoot naked phallic magic missiles.
it's a imaginary response to a real counterargument and, as such, is nothing more than cheap rhetorics.
-
I like how the whole of Singapore's military is basically made up of teenagers driving tanks...
:wakka:
That bad?
-
"if you criminalize guns, only a few criminals will have them"
*Points at the UK*
-
Ban guns: Crime committed with guns goes down somewhat.
Sadly though Crime with knives, bats, lawn mowers, cattle prods, migets, and just about anything else shot through the roof.
Really, even IF you took all the bad guns away from everyone, even the bad men, they'll only find another way to kill people.
Instead of shooting rampage at the office, you get wacko in car filled with gas can's running into the office at 75mph.
Crazed teen jerks wheel from bus driver and runs bus full of kids off bridge.
Knee-jerk reactions won't solve it all.
and just because something works or doesn't work in the UK, China, Russia, whereever doesn't mean it'll have the same effect in the US. Or any other country for that matter. Different cultures tend to react differently to different stimuli.
-
Ban guns: Crime committed with guns goes down somewhat.
Sadly though Crime with knives, bats, lawn mowers, cattle prods, migets, and just about anything else shot through the roof.
Really, even IF you took all the bad guns away from everyone, even the bad men, they'll only find another way to kill people.
Instead of shooting rampage at the office, you get wacko in car filled with gas can's running into the office at 75mph.
Crazed teen jerks wheel from bus driver and runs bus full of kids off bridge.
Knee-jerk reactions won't solve it all.
and just because something works or doesn't work in the UK, China, Russia, whereever doesn't mean it'll have the same effect in the US. Or any other country for that matter. Different cultures tend to react differently to different stimuli.
*sigh* Statistics to prove your hypothesis about a complicated issue best left to social science?
-
Ban guns: Crime committed with guns goes down somewhat.
Sadly though Crime with knives, bats, lawn mowers, cattle prods, migets, and just about anything else shot through the roof.
Got any proof of that? Cause the UK is still lower than the US on homicides per 100,000 people. You want to say that America is that way simply because it has more crazy and violent people than the UK, fine. But surely in that case giving them easy access to guns is not a good idea.
and just because something works or doesn't work in the UK, China, Russia, whereever doesn't mean it'll have the same effect in the US. Or any other country for that matter. Different cultures tend to react differently to different stimuli.
True, but as I said in my first post, America isn't willing to change anything else either. And furthermore there have been lots of people calling for increased gun ownership and increased use of carry concealed permits in order to cut crime (in fact that's what the original post was about). Which is just as open to being a knee-jerk reaction as anything I've said.
-
Instead of shooting rampage at the office, you get wacko in car filled with gas can's running into the office at 75mph.
So, restricting guns will turn a Columbine into an Oklahoma City? :doubt:
-
So you all agree that violent homicedes didn't become a problem until after the firearm was invented? Odd.
And no I have no proof nor will I waste my time :) It's a debate/discussion.....convincing any of you is pointless I'm merely enjoying the thread. Besides, we haven't banned any firearms outright so how could I possibly test this? Rather difficult without a proper test subject to via against the control subjects :D
-
So you all agree that violent homicedes didn't become a problem until after the firearm was invented? Odd.
:wtf:
-
[
and just because something works or doesn't work in the UK, China, Russia, whereever doesn't mean it'll have the same effect in the US. Or any other country for that matter. Different cultures tend to react differently to different stimuli.
True, but as I said in my first post, America isn't willing to change anything else either. And furthermore there have been lots of people calling for increased gun ownership and increased use of carry concealed permits in order to cut crime (in fact that's what the original post was about). Which is just as open to being a knee-jerk reaction as anything I've said.
True, though I'm all for everyone's right to own and conceal carry (as long as they go through the proper channels) I'm not jumping up and down saying it'll fix anything or everyone needs to do it.
Though I will admit I feel if the average criminal had to wonder about his target having a concealed firearm, there's a better chance of them moving on to something else.
-
You can use knives to slice bread and spread butter.
You can use axes to cut down trees.
You play golf with clubs.
You drive a car to get places.
You fuel your car with gasoline.
You use a gun for...what, cleaning dog crap off the floor?
Guns were invented for the sole purpose of killing, be it hunting or in war or crime. Knives, axes, clubs, cars, and gasoline can be used for that purpose, but serve a valuable function for society outside of murder.
You can't possibly compare violent crime before the advent of tools specifically designed for killing and after.
-
:wtf: Point set miss ?
I'm comparing man's desire to kill to man will only kill if he has a gun.
Just because you take away firearms does not mean people will not be murdered, or robbed, etc.
-
:wtf: Point set miss ?
I'm comparing man's desire to kill to man will only kill if he has a gun.
Just because you take away firearms does not mean people will not be murdered, or robbed, etc.
It certainly makes it easier, which might increase the rates. Men, for example, have higher rates of successful suicide than women because they're more likely to use guns, even though women attempt suicide more often.
-
Well that arguement can also be made as :
Men mostly are serious about suicide and thus use a firearm to fullfill it, while on average most women are in trouble and seeking help (attention, what have you...you're call to pick) and thus use other less direct means.
Just like the whole issue of cutting a wrist across vs running down the veins from elbow to wrist. Or walk infront of a semitruck for that matter. :rolleyes:
Then again I just likely knew way too many drama crazied people in school and it left me a bit jaded. *shrug*
But ease of the killing aside, it's still the person committing the crime that does the act, the tool or choice is just that....merely a tool.
While I'll agree a gun may make it "easier" to decide to kill your neighbor,....I'd argue that if the punishment's for the act were much more strict and more final....you'd have less regardless of the tool. Sadly to some 25 years less good behavior is a badge of frakking honor not a punishment.
-
I just hate the argument of "well, you ban guns, we're still going to find ways to kill people." What you're saying is that a knife or a golf club is just as effective a weapon as a firearm, when, truly, they're not in the least bit the same.
Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that, and as a result they're quick, easier, and more effective. Suicides by firearm are preferred because its fairly instant and painless, compared with bleeding to death after slitting wrists or slowly suffocating from hanging. Murder by firearm is easier because it's a matter of point-and-shoot, not charging up to someone and trying to stab them where they can defend themselves or trying to set them on fire.
You take away the things which make murder and suicide easy and accessible, then you make some people rethink doing it in the first place. I can guarantee you, if I was going to kill myself, I wouldn't want to A) see it or B) feel it.
-
I was just reading the Seattle Times. Some ugly guy in the Graham area shot five of his ugly children and then shot himself in the face. The next day, a survivalist ambushed and murdered three of our police officers with an AK47.
The lesson here is that print journalism deserves to die.
GUNS FOREVER!
Seriously though, you think that education in firearms for children (which would include criminals after all) wouldn't result in better informed, better trained criminals
Moron. The trick is to educate the people before they become criminals. :p
-
Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that
And knives, or any kind of blades, aren't? :wtf: The entire reason for the existence of knives was to make hunting more efficient, as well as making it easier to dismember the animal carcass.
if I was going to kill myself, I wouldn't want to A) see it or B) feel it.
Then poison yourself. Without firearms, just as many people would kill themselves. If you were going to kill yourself, you probably A) wouldn't care if you saw it or B) wouldn't care if you felt it.
What you're saying is that a knife or a golf club is just as effective a weapon as a firearm, when, truly, they're not in the least bit the same.
They don't have to be the same to be just as effective. Dead is dead.
Murder by firearm is easier because it's a matter of point-and-shoot
By the same logic, so is defense by firearm, which is what I've been arguing for the whole time.
Moron. The trick is to educate the people before they become criminals.
No need to name call. But amusing nonetheless. :)
-
Yes let's just remove the MEANS of murder not the actual person doing it or the reason or the will.
Blame it all on the gun! How did I miss it! I've been wrong all this years!!!
Ok seriously. Point is you can preach ban guns all you want. It won't stop murder or suicide.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they will.
Try actually having capital punishment. You murder someone, you get put down. Yes I mean murder. Not man slaughter, etc. You're convicted of actually going after someone with the intent to kill them, you end up 6 feet under.
-
Ok seriously. Point is you can preach ban guns all you want. It won't stop murder or suicide.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they will.
No one's arguing that banning guns would stop violent crime. It's a question of ease.
Try actually having capital punishment. You murder someone, you get put down. Yes I mean murder. Not man slaughter, etc. You're convicted of actually going after someone with the intent to kill them, you end up 6 feet under.
How would that help?
Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that
And knives, or any kind of blades, aren't? :wtf: The entire reason for the existence of knives was to make hunting more efficient, as well as making it easier to dismember the animal carcass.
Knives are used to prepare food. How many guns can do that? Can you seriously claim that killing with a knife is as easy as killing with a gun?
-
Guns are so attractive as weapons because they're designed to do just that
And knives, or any kind of blades, aren't? :wtf: The entire reason for the existence of knives was to make hunting more efficient, as well as making it easier to dismember the animal carcass.
if I was going to kill myself, I wouldn't want to A) see it or B) feel it.
Then poison yourself. Without firearms, just as many people would kill themselves. If you were going to kill yourself, you probably A) wouldn't care if you saw it or B) wouldn't care if you felt it.
What you're saying is that a knife or a golf club is just as effective a weapon as a firearm, when, truly, they're not in the least bit the same.
They don't have to be the same to be just as effective. Dead is dead.
Murder by firearm is easier because it's a matter of point-and-shoot
By the same logic, so is defense by firearm, which is what I've been arguing for the whole time.
Moron. The trick is to educate the people before they become criminals.
No need to name call. But amusing nonetheless. :)
You have no data for most of your assertions here. This argument in general is a bit vapid, actually.
If you've used firearms in comparison to knife combat training (I've done a bit of both), you'll know a firearm is a far easier way to kill -- especially on a psychological level.
-
I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives. My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing. Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult. It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.
-
I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives. My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing. Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult. It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.
Unfortunately irrelevant to murder statistics.
I haven't actually weighed in on this, but I will say I want hard data on gun control before I commit to one viewpoint.
As a scientist, psychology suggests to me that availability heuristics mean murders will drop if guns are banned -- for the same reason organ donation rates are higher under opt-out systems than opt-in. People go with what's easy, and if it's not easy, people don't do it.
THAT SAID.
People often argue that banning abortion will lower abortion rates. When, in fact, banning abortion affects abortion rates not at all, and women simply have more unsafe abortions -- leading to more deaths.
So I would be unsurprised to learn that banning guns does not affect gun violence.
-
I was stating as a counter-point to "guns are meant to kill people" that so were knives. My argument had no bearing on the ease of killing. Besides, if someone is going to kill someone with anything it will still be psychologically difficult. It may be easier to actually commit the murder, but living with it is something else entirely.
And my point was that while some knives are intended for killing, plenty of other knives are used to spread butter and cut material. Name me one firearm that's not intended to kill or cause harm to someone or something.
-
High Max, if you can't handle debating without insulting, leave. Scotty didn't insult anyone, yet you're attacking him.
Oh and of course there's no end to this debate insight, if there were an end, I'd assume those in much higher positions than us that have been debating this issue much longer with much better facts and research would have actually come to a conclusion and action would have been taken, one way or another, for better or worse.
Name me one firearm that's not intended to kill or cause harm to someone or something.
Paintball gun :P So hard to resist that one.
-
:lol: :p
-
Oh .....and a Starter's Pistol and Flare Gun as well :)
Sorry ....long day and it's near/past time I should have passed out....especially being 4.5hours before I have to be up driving 2 hours to work again lol Thank god for helpers with driver's licenses :D
-
Paintball gun :P So hard to resist that one.
So we ban all guns except paintball guns then. After all, most muggers would also think twice about taking on someone carrying one of those too. :p
-
Paintball gun :P So hard to resist that one.
So we ban all guns except paintball guns then. After all, most muggers would also think twice about taking on someone carrying one of those too. :p
*spranggg*
"OUCH MY ****ING EYE"
*pinggg*
"GODDAMNIT"
*pinggg*
-
Paintball and flare guns are modified from the original source, as it were.
Its arguable, but not certain, that blades were created originally for making killing easier. That depends entirely on the anthropologist or archaeologist you talk to. There is some interesting evidence to point that they may have been extensively used for food preparation, and some interesting (lack of) evidence that they were used for killing.
Guns on the other hand, were manufactured to kill ;) Paintball guns are a very recent adaptation of the concept to SIMULATE killing ;)
For the record, I disagree with the original article. I am for well, centrally regulated control of these tools, at least on the scale of drivers licenses.
*Points at the UK*
For better or worse we are talking largely of american ownership, and for better or worse we have 2nd amendment issues and an extremely long history with these tools. In this country, that euphemism would be true. Prohibition springs to mind, and GB's point on abortion is extremely interesting (as much from what it possibly means as it does from a philosophical argument method when dealing with conservative blowhards*).
-edit-
*Or liberal ones for that matter.
-
For better or worse we are talking largely of american ownership, and for better or worse we have 2nd amendment issues and an extremely long history with these tools.
Ah, finally we get around to the constitutional argument. So it says that Americans can carry weapons. So what?
If the 2nd amendment is valid then you should be able to justify it without having to refer to the 2nd amendment in order to do so. I can justify the 1st or 5th amendments fairly easily off the top of my head. Otherwise you're simply arguing that you should be allowed to have guns because you've always been allowed to have guns. And that's no argument at all.
-
Genie out of the bottle, not to mention it sets bad precedence on revoking granted rights. 200+ years of historical momentum.
Once a right is granted, its hard to revoke it. Especially if you are talking about Americans. We take it seriously.
What you are suggesting is a bit too utopian a view to be realistic. We have them, we believe we have reasons to carry them on occasion. They are not going away in the United States.
We should strive to make the situation as safe as possible and keep them out of the hands of people who are not fit. That includes criminals as well as idiots.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The people should have the right to defend their homes from attack, foreign or domestic, to be able to take up arms in defense of their country, a right that the british attempted to take away in the 1700's For better or worse, its one of hte things that started that little tiff we had a couple hundred years ago.
Is it viable now? I dunno. I do know I have reasons to be armed on occasion. Safeguarding things greedy people want. Those greedy people could be foreign or domestic. The likelihood of it happening is low enough not to require a police escort, the the consequences of it happening are high enough to take some precautions. That's pure risk assessment and mitigation. In the unlikely even that something were to happen, that something is likely to be lethal. So, in those circumstances I carry a weapon.
I have carried weapons many times in the past for non-criminally focused reasons though:
It was standard practice to take a weapon, often a rifle, when out on the farm. Groundhogs dig up huge holes that wreck tractors posing a life threatening circumstance, they also could create a situation where the cattle could break a leg, threatening the viability of the herd. We were to identify the holes to fill in, and shoot the poor little critters to thin their population. We also had the traditional "fox in the hen-house" problems. You protect your land.
Additionally, I spent time doing field work out west. It is highly dangerous to spend any time in the back country of the American west. Between the people who might think you a claim jumper, and the various wild animals that might decide you are a tasty snack, you go armed. Period. You'll find that to be the case of many nationalities in many wildernesses. People who did field work in Alaska were issued .45's to help them convince grizzly bears that they were not worth snacking on (note, the cartridge was big enough to hurt the bear and make it go away, but not big enough to kill it). Bears, boars, wolves, coyotes, rattlesnakes. Some would hunt you, some would attack if startled. All of them were dangerous, and being armed helped make sure you at least survived the encounter. I carried a pistol in those days for those reasons.
That's three separate classes of activities that have repeatedly called for arming myself. That right is what the 2nd amendment allows for, in addition to the rhetoric about defending ourselves against an unjust government or foreign invaders.
-
What's being lost in the general conversation is the following:
The Constitution of the United States, and by extension the Federal Government, does not grant rights to the individual. It merely enumerates some of them. It does however grant specific, and limited , to the Federal Government.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
My general dissatisfaction with Washington is that they are perpetually trying to exceed they're Constitutionally limited power.
-
I should stop before I am irretrievably linked to Liberators political ideology :)
-
lawl ;)
-
LOL yes let's not delve into such things as the President forcing a president of a non-government company out of his job.
Besides let's also not forget one other core reason for the 2nd Amendment's protection of our right to bear arms, in case the citizens needed to raise against the government....again.
Granted, this issue would be compeltely different in this day and age, but that was one of the original reasons.
Don't forget, the 2nd Amendment does not grant said right, it only protects it.
-
So just because someone doesn't beleive your view of things we're not seeing the light, selfish and stubborn? Yet you're claiming the culture as a whole is rude? :wtf:
See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.
Removal of rights is never the answer. That's one of the current problems in this country. 50% attempt to force their views on the other 50% and vice versa, all the while both attempting to yank rights away here and there.
Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways. But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.
Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."
sorry got a bit off topic there eh? :))
-
Again, Laws do not explicitly give rights, merely enumerate and explain them.
Rights are inherent to the individual, not the State.
They are modified, not eliminated, by the Social Contract.
To give up a right voluntarily is considered to be selfless, or heroic
To take a right from someone is considered criminal or evil.
-
See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.
But except for the constitution (which as I've already said you have to justify) how is owning a gun a right? And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?
Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways. But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.
Okay. Now let's take this away from smoking for a second. Suppose I own a chemical company. I decide to be lax with my health and safety rules to save money. I hire cheap labour and get them to sign a waiver to prevent them suing me for health problems caused by the toxins they are working with.
Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way? As an employer I owe my workers a duty of care. If I fail to do so, the government should be stepping in and making me pay for it.
So now look at a bar. I'm hiring largely unskilled workers and asking them to work in a work environment which is very heavily laced with carcinogens. How is the situation any different?
People like to claim that smoking bans should be entirely up to the owner/clients and completely forget that there are a third set of people there who don't have much of a choice. So what are you going to do? Tell non-smokers that they can't work in bars? Tell them that had they worked in a chemical plant they would have a legal recourse to complain about exposure to lower amounts of toxins but since they work in a bar it's tough luck? The easiest way is to simply say no smoking at all. It has a side benefit of helping out patrons who like bars but can't stand smoke too but that's not why the ban exists.
Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."
That on the other hand is ridiculous.
-
If Americans here were willing to give up a couple of freedoms for the greater good and make things not so available, there would be less crime.
Must...not...Godwin...myself...
You, my young friend, are kinda creepy.
-
I find myself agreeing with High Max on mostly everything he said. :blah:
-
That's not reducing the creepy factor ;)
-
See ...some of us believe, that you can't have safety and peace by removing rights of the people, any people. Now mind you I am talking about rights and not privledges here, big difference there.
But except for the constitution (which as I've already said you have to justify) how is owning a gun a right? And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?
I'm talking about firearms in general since the debate has,...basically,...been about having firearms or having none at all. Why do I have to justify the consitution to you? It's design was solely to protect not to grant a thing. But if I must, one of the core elements of the 2nd Amend. Protecting that right was not only to allow persons to defend themselves, family, and home, as well as to form a Miltia if needed, but also in case of government corruption. Think about the events that lead to the US Constitution being written. We had just won our freedom from a (then) oppressive government. By allowing the citizens to be protected from the Gov denying them the right to own and bear arms, they insured that the Gov would always have to maintane a balance understanding that the people would be able to raise up and remove them if needed.
Now you'll likely ask how this has to be about a gun. Simple. Does a bat defend against a gun? Or a knife? No. It's about simple basics of the people having a similar means as the gov.
Now please keep in mind this is how I percieve it, I am not a member of the Gov, nor am I a continuing student of Law, the Constitution or anything else related. Feel free to debunk everything I say by googling things to your hearts content :)
Just recently here in VA they decided on the non-smoking ban in all resturants and bars, regardless of owner's choice. Now I'm completely fine with a non-smoking place, and matter of fact most places my wife and I eat at are already non-smoking and if not I sit in non-smoking anyways. But it should be that buisness' right to decide which kind of customer base they wish to serve. If you don't like smokers at while you eat,...then you don't go to a place that allows smoking. Ultimately the costumers, by simle matter of which places get buisness and manage to survive, will decide which is best. It should never be forced on a buisness/person.
Okay. Now let's take this away from smoking for a second. Suppose I own a chemical company. I decide to be lax with my health and safety rules to save money. I hire cheap labour and get them to sign a waiver to prevent them suing me for health problems caused by the toxins they are working with.
Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way? As an employer I owe my workers a duty of care. If I fail to do so, the government should be stepping in and making me pay for it.
So now look at a bar. I'm hiring largely unskilled workers and asking them to work in a work environment which is very heavily laced with carcinogens. How is the situation any different?
People like to claim that smoking bans should be entirely up to the owner/clients and completely forget that there are a third set of people there who don't have much of a choice. So what are you going to do? Tell non-smokers that they can't work in bars? Tell them that had they worked in a chemical plant they would have a legal recourse to complain about exposure to lower amounts of toxins but since they work in a bar it's tough luck? The easiest way is to simply say no smoking at all. It has a side benefit of helping out patrons who like bars but can't stand smoke too but that's not why the ban exists.
Well for one you couldn't "Have them sign a wavier against sueing you. You can't sign away your rights. Already been proven in numerous court cases, google's ---> that way if needed.
Now as for hiring largely unskilled workers, yup, you don't HAVE to take that job at the bar that allows smoking, take a job at the bar across the street that doesn't. See here's the catch. IF Bar 1 allows smoking, Bar 2 doesn't. Factor in the number of "Barflies" that smoke in the area vs the number that do not smoke, now factor in the number of bar workers that smoke and/or are willing(yes willing) to work in a smoking bar with those who are not.
If the customers and employment bases prefer Bar 2, Bar 1 will not be able to maintain profit and/or employment.
Yet, now we flip things. The customer base in the area mostly smoke. Now most smokers will do so while drinking, and most bars do not either allow or have easy means of leaving and reentering, especially those that charge a cover charge. These customers now stay home on Fri and Sat nights and drink and smoke while watching TV. Bar 1 goes out of buisness due to the Gov mandated non-smoking ban. Or do we just toss them a "stimulus" pack as well?
Transfat ban. You know, maybe I WANT to eat some trans fatty foods at one time or another. It's my right. Yes make them state which food as which/how much in it. But it should be for the person eating to decide. If they get all fat and unhealthy....they have medical insurance and it'll go up more do to poor health. Let them make the call and deal with it. I do not need my government to "look out and protect me from myself."
That on the other hand is ridiculous.
Only if you're a health minded person. But let me ask this,....where does it stop? Well Transfat are bad for you, now banned. Oops look at that, high sugar content makes you fat too, well can't have that, limit the amount used in food. Oh damn, we just found out people that drink alot of coffee are prone to anxiety, well can't have a bunch of nervous people about the world, coffee's out too.
Oh .....computer games that have violence cause highschooler's to go on mass murdering rampages.....enjoy the new full 1080P version of Pong!!
-
I'm an exception, however
Yeah, and everyone else is being stubborn and pig-headded. :rolleyes:
The problem is most Americans are so obsessed with freedom that they don't want more rules for more safety and peace and lack discipline and true self respect (not trying to live a healthy lifestyle on average, for example).
First of all, your opinion right there. Secondly, who the f*ck cares? Just because someone doesn't live up to your own personal ideals of self-respect doesn't mean that they have thrown it out the window. Talk about forcing your morals on someone else.
my diet is completely different than my family's in most ways (healthier)
Does not matter at all to the discussion.
And the funny thing is that USA may be depicted by foreigners to be some sort of utopia saying that Americans are so happy (but that isn't so much the truth. I can tell), but once they get here, many of them are surprised to find that many Americans kill each other and the families here aren't as tight.
Their view of my country doesn't affect me, nor does it automatically mean it is true. I for one am very happy living in the U.S. Also, people kill each other everywhere else too. Go ask the middle east about that. If they are surprised, their problem.
And you say "we" like thinking all Americans feel that way
And you say "you" like every other thinking American feels that way.
USA is not right, it is too arrogant, though people here say it is always right and has the so-called best quality of life. Haha, that makes me smile but also makes me feel anger. I could name maybe more than 10 ways it isn't right here or the best quality of life. But that is not for this thread. All I can say is that someday its way of thinking will destroy it. Either that or it will merge with a global government
Who cares? Not the point of the discussion, nor a fact.
If Americans here were willing to give up a couple of freedoms for the greater good and make things not so available, there would be less crime. That sounds simpler. Logic tells me that the reason the USA has one of the highest crime rights is because of too much freedom and a rude corrupt culture to boot.
:wtf:
Logic should tell you that the USA has one of the highest crime rates because it is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. Some cultures don't get along well with others. Also, some people are just plain bat**** crazy, or have logically deduced (argument on this earlier) that crime is the best way to raise their status.
Besides, what do you define as the greater good? The good for the majority, or the good for those in power? And how does taking away the right to defend one's self relate to less crime?
saying all Arabs are terrorists is stupid
Sure as hell is. The radical minority is.
What is more important, keeping a right or keeping your love one safer?
In this case, it is fortunate that keeping a right is keeping your loved one safer.
Oh yeah, that brings up something I like to say and have said many times in the past: That is ridiculous that we worry too much about the population of other animals when we should worry about our own population first. But people want the right to have as many kids as possible (that may destroy humanity someday since food and resourses may run out) and then we say the animals are the problem. We are the problem. The part that bothers me is we are the problem but we say they are.
:wtf: What the f*ck is this? People shouldn't have to want the right to have kids. When did animals get brought into that issue. It has no relation what...so...ever.]
I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool.
Why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that I don't think what I think because everyone else does? I have repeatedly said that I have deliberated at length and decided that my choice is the best one for me. My own personal belief is "WHO CARES what the rest of the world or country thinks?" I have decided my own ideals.
Another example is saying that Chinese kill babies who are girls because they only want boys, but I don't believe that. Of course they abort but many countries do, even here.
Chinese Infanticide Statistics (http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html)
Honestly, a lot of that stuff is made up, but not all, and you can't just summarily dismiss everything like that.
But except for the constitution
Pretty damn big exception, right there.
And where would you draw the line between a right to arm yourself and a privilege? Automatics? Grenades? A bazooka? Nukes?
I believe that I already stated my view on this. Line drawn on explosives and vehicle mounted/emplaced weapons.
Do you honestly think the government shouldn't step in to stop me exploiting the poor in this way?
Someone can only be exploited like that with their express co-operation. If it was such a bad problem, people would quit, and you would be forced to wage prices and increase safety standards to be able to hire anyone. That is what should determine wages in a capitalistic society. Not some OPed Union or the government.
But let me ask this,....where does it stop?
When everyone only eats or drinks water, tofu and organically grown vegetables that have never seen anything remotely artificial, as well as only being able to walk to work or school.
-
I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool.
Why is it that you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that I don't think what I think because everyone else does? I have repeatedly said that I have deliberated at length and decided that my choice is the best one for me. My own personal belief is "WHO CARES what the rest of the world or country thinks?" I have decided my own ideals.
Wow imagine that!! People can form their own opinion that is completely the opposite of someone elses all on their own!!
:D
Probably why the whole lable "gun nut" for anyone pro right to bear annoys the piss out of me :) Every single person has their own reasons for their belief, good or bad. Thou some sad lot just follow which ever media outlet has the cuter gal/guy for them. :rolleyes:
-
Well, actually...your political attitudes are at least some part genetic, and the rest comes from your environment.
You'd be a very different creature if you were raised somewhere else.
So yes, your beliefs actually do come from what everyone tells you to believe. As do everyone else's.
-
Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?
I'll agree that some of one's belief is attributed to what they are told from others. But not all.
For example I'm very different than my father in alot of areas. Growing up, he was fairly racist as a sad fact of his upbringing and age. I however had managed to keep from seeing every darkskinned person as a *insert word* and seeing them as a person. In fact by having several best friends of different races I like to think I at least managed to get my father just a bit farther down the road on the issue.
Granted that is merely an example of difference from what you're raised to believe. Not a thread topic change :)
And oh course I'd be a different creature if I was born somewhere else. Then I wouldn't have had any of the experiences that have made me what I am today.
-
Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?
I'll agree that some of one's belief is attributed to what they are told from others. But not all.
For example I'm very different than my father in alot of areas. Growing up, he was fairly racist as a sad fact of his upbringing and age. I however had managed to keep from seeing every darkskinned person as a *insert word* and seeing them as a person. In fact by having several best friends of different races I like to think I at least managed to get my father just a bit farther down the road on the issue.
Granted that is merely an example of difference from what you're raised to believe. Not a thread topic change :)
And oh course I'd be a different creature if I was born somewhere else. Then I wouldn't have had any of the experiences that have made me what I am today.
At a basic level your political conservatism is about 60% heritable. This doesn't assert itself until after age 20, and conservatism expresses itself differently based on the environment (you're unlikely to turn out racist), for example.
But odds are you'll find yourself slightly more than halfway akin to your father. (A bit of an exaggeration, but close enough.)
Because life experience and generally reading and learning on one's own is completely meaningless?
My friend, those are just other ways of being told what to think.
-
Ummmm ....being 35 I think I've already passed that benchmark :)
-
No.
-
Off topic but a reply to the above:
I'm saying freedom is good, but too much is not. Like most things in life, if you don't have a balance, you have more problems, and to minimize the problems, balance is needed. Also, there are different types of freedom. For example, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, freedom of education, etc. Every country has freedom to a certain extent, but the amount and the type of freedom varies.
I'm just saying it is blind if you mindlessly be patriotic and follow other influences just because USA and its citizens say that the way the culture thinks is how you should think and act and says doing this and that is cool. Maybe you missed that part. I'm not talking about being blind if one doesn't follow my views; I'm talking about the many people who are blindly patriotic and give into influences and lifestyles here like they are brainwashed and can't think for themselves or resist it and are scared that if they don't do what others do, they will be an outcast. But if I had only the choice of being an outcast or fitting in with others I feel are bad, I would choose outcast. Often times, these people don't want to learn about other cultures and countries and their ways and don't want to research a lot. They may like it more in certain countries if they learned about them and met people from there more. They don't think outside the box which is the USA. I'm talking about the majority here; not everyone. It is sad.
Another thing that I don't like is many people in this country misunderstand other cultures or exaggerate about them or believe false things about these other countries or cultures. For example, saying all Arabs are terrorists is stupid. There culture is actually about peace. It is the small minority of the Arabs who are terrorists. But people here are brainwashed into thinking they all are. I hate that. Another example is saying that Chinese kill babies who are girls because they only want boys, but I don't believe that. Of course they abort but many countries do, even here. China is one of the countries that has the most females compared to males ratio in the world. The population there consists of more females than males. That is one reason it is hard for a Chinese man to find a wife there or maybe hard for a woman to find a husband there. In their culture, similar to VN, they want a son, but they don't kill it if it is a daughter as evident of what I said above. The son is to pass on the family's name and it has to do with filial peity and I'm sure many other countries think that way.
USA may have been yanking some rights away, but they are also adding some new ones, it seems. However, I don't feel like certain rights have been yanked even if some have. I feel free.
And here are the Europeans saying we all do drugs and kill each other rampantly, yet you ignore them :p
-
I think it's more publicized here, what with the 25h/8d news cycle :sigh:
One thing America doesn't do well, and I've said this before, is the handling and treatment of mental health. There are no asylums in America any more, not public ones anyway. All the public ones were unceremoniously closed and the occupants turned out into the street about 35 years ago. There was a corresponding rise in both crime and homelessness.
A fair portion of the homeless are not in a condition mentally to be allowed to walk around, there are many cases of extreme schizophrenia and other severe mental illness that remain treatable only with heavy doses of amphetimines or suppression through heavy narcotics.
-
Well it does seem that USA has more of the psychopaths and crazy people killing in odd ways than any other country. Do they? Like for example, the chain saw massacre and all these school shootings. Gothic female killers killing for blood and drinking it. Watch the Discovery ID channel. The sheer amount of odd balls like that and incidents. What other country has things like people who do chain saw massacres and being cannibalistic to their victims and many school shootings and bombs in schools and things to those extremes and with that number of crazy people and actions like here? And those are all internal problems here. Whenever I hear about crazy serial killers and stuff, most of them seem to be from here. Why? The real problem seems to originate internally, not internationally, though society here tries to make people think it is mostly internationally. The real threat to Americans seems to mostly be from within the country.
OH MY GOD THE LUNACY
Dude. You cannot make these assertions without DATA. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing.
-
Or maybe you can save me the time and look up chain saw massacre and other things, or must I bother... Fine....here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#United_States_of_America. I just looked through it and under USA, I see the longest list of serial killers and all the other countries listed have a much smaller list. You will also notice that China has a small list. What does that tell you about safety and polite culture? Many countries listed have a small list but uk is quite a bit larger than I expected.
hmmmmm china and reported murders hmm this statistic sounds GREAT
-
I'm talking about firearms in general since the debate has,...basically,...been about having firearms or having none at all. Why do I have to justify the consitution to you?
Because the constitution was written over 200 years ago. If you're saying that you do not need to prove that it is still valid today then you raise it from simply being a legal document to a holy work, written by an infallible source. If you want to claim "The constitution gives me the right to bear arms" you have to justify why it gives you that right. Otherwise once something is in the constitution it would be there forever. And the repeal of prohibition shows that isn't the case.
But if I must, one of the core elements of the 2nd Amend. Protecting that right was not only to allow persons to defend themselves, family, and home, as well as to form a Miltia if needed, but also in case of government corruption. Think about the events that lead to the US Constitution being written. We had just won our freedom from a (then) oppressive government. By allowing the citizens to be protected from the Gov denying them the right to own and bear arms, they insured that the Gov would always have to maintane a balance understanding that the people would be able to raise up and remove them if needed.
Now you'll likely ask how this has to be about a gun. Simple. Does a bat defend against a gun? Or a knife? No. It's about simple basics of the people having a similar means as the gov.
But you aren't similar. The government has tanks, airplanes and nuclear weapons. You're not going to get very far rising up against the government with handguns and anyone who thinks that they are has been watching Red Dawn far too much.
Besides as has already been brought up on this thread it's very doubtful that there would be any kind of armed revolution until it was far too late. Bush was arguably the most dictatorial president America has had for a while, passing laws like the Patriot act and bringing in agencies with Orwellian names like Homeland Security yet the people with the guns loved him. I very much doubt that anything would happen. Dictators do not seize power, that's just what the people claim later. Dictators are given power by the people who only realise that it was a bad idea once they are too scared to actually do anything about it. Having guns won't help you by that point.
Well for one you couldn't "Have them sign a wavier against sueing you. You can't sign away your rights. Already been proven in numerous court cases, google's ---> that way if needed.
So you're saying that non-smokers who work in a bar can sue their employer if they develop lung cancer? If they can't then what is the difference from saying that people who worked in an unsafe chemical factory chose to do so and therefore can't sue. If they can, then you've opened a massive can of worms.
Now as for hiring largely unskilled workers, yup, you don't HAVE to take that job at the bar that allows smoking, take a job at the bar across the street that doesn't. See here's the catch. IF Bar 1 allows smoking, Bar 2 doesn't. Factor in the number of "Barflies" that smoke in the area vs the number that do not smoke, now factor in the number of bar workers that smoke and/or are willing(yes willing) to work in a smoking bar with those who are not.
If the customers and employment bases prefer Bar 2, Bar 1 will not be able to maintain profit and/or employment.
I can make the same argument about my chemical factories though. The fact that I don't have to pay pensions cause all my workers are dropping dead at an early age, plus my shoddy health and safety practices mean that I can undercut my competition pretty easily. No one has to buy chemicals from my company they can go to a company with a good safety record if they want. We can let the market decide whether my customers want good safety practices or not.
Yet, now we flip things. The customer base in the area mostly smoke. Now most smokers will do so while drinking, and most bars do not either allow or have easy means of leaving and reentering, especially those that charge a cover charge. These customers now stay home on Fri and Sat nights and drink and smoke while watching TV. Bar 1 goes out of buisness due to the Gov mandated non-smoking ban. Or do we just toss them a "stimulus" pack as well?
Except that hasn't happened has it? It's a common ploy to claim that smoking bans reduce the number of people going to bars but I've not heard any evidence of that. People like to drink and smokers are already used to not being able to light up whenever they want. Pubs and bars in London are still just as busy after we brought in a smoking ban.
Well Transfat are bad for you, now banned. Oops look at that, high sugar content makes you fat too, well can't have that, limit the amount used in food. Oh damn, we just found out people that drink alot of coffee are prone to anxiety, well can't have a bunch of nervous people about the world, coffee's out too.
Like I said. It's ridiculous.
-
@High Max: no, it doesn't make anyone think twice about confronting you, it makes me want to confront you more. We do give up freedoms for the sake of safety and security. Freedom is not something that gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want. You can't yell fire in a theatre, you can't take the running car because you think its pretty, Law defines what you can't do. What freedoms, besides the right to carry a weapon, would you have us surrender? The right to assembly perhaps?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg)
Just curious where it stops in your mind?
That's what you get when you start down that proverbial slippery slope. And for better or worse, that's one of the things that the 2nd amendment helps guard against. But only one of them.
@kara: What about my reasons?
-
The problem for me is that, whilst I do agree that guns don't kill people, people do (though, admittedly, very often with guns), I just don't think the problem is the guns themselves, it's the teaching of responsible use. Because guns are incredibly common in the US, a certain percentage of people don't consider them with the respect they deserve as objects designed to kill.
It's odd, people will treat kitchen knives and boiling pans of water as though they were primed dynamite, especially when children are around, and yet will also leave the gun cabinet unlocked and the ammo in the cabinet with the guns. It's not the guns that are really the problem, it's people being responsible with them, and that's something that is a lot harder to teach, when you are angry and you have a means for getting 'revenge' there will always be those who take that option.
-
Or maybe you can save me the time and look up chain saw massacre and other things, or must I bother... Fine....here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country#United_States_of_America. I just looked through it and under USA, I see the longest list of serial killers and all the other countries listed have a much smaller list. You will also notice that China has a small list. What does that tell you about safety and polite culture? Many countries listed have a small list but uk is quite a bit larger than I expected.
You're intelligent, right? Do you know about the scientific method?
The reason the USA has the biggest list is because it a) has the most active media, b) has the most Wikipedia users, c) has an excellent criminal justice system. You have no reason to believe that this article is a representative sample of murders around the world.
Use science. SCIENCE.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg)
Tank drivers are stupid.
GO AROUND much?
-
They don't have blinkers, so they can't change lanes.
-
They were too close in patrol, always leave a tank length between vehicles, those things don't turn on a dime.
-
They were too close in patrol, always leave a tank length between vehicles, those things don't turn on a dime.
No reverse gear either then...
-
Genie out of the bottle, not to mention it sets bad precedence on revoking granted rights. 200+ years of historical momentum.
The constitution has been amended both to remove a right and then to reverse that. So the precedent is already set both ways.
Once a right is granted, its hard to revoke it. Especially if you are talking about Americans. We take it seriously.
What you are suggesting is a bit too utopian a view to be realistic. We have them, we believe we have reasons to carry them on occasion. They are not going away in the United States.
Again, not much of an argument. You're basically saying we always have done it so why should we stop.
The people should have the right to defend their homes from attack, foreign or domestic, to be able to take up arms in defense of their country, a right that the british attempted to take away in the 1700's For better or worse, its one of hte things that started that little tiff we had a couple hundred years ago.
Is it viable now? I dunno.
It's not. As I explained to Warlock, believing you can protect yourself against the government with the kind of weapons you legally have access to is Red Dawn style fantasy. How long do you really think Waco would have lasted against a tyrannical government? They'd have just brought the artillery in and ended it within a few hours.
The same goes for foreign invasions. If the enemy have somehow gotten past the US armed forces it's hard to believe that someone is going to hold them off with a handgun.
I do know I have reasons to be armed on occasion. Safeguarding things greedy people want. Those greedy people could be foreign or domestic. The likelihood of it happening is low enough not to require a police escort, the the consequences of it happening are high enough to take some precautions. That's pure risk assessment and mitigation. In the unlikely even that something were to happen, that something is likely to be lethal. So, in those circumstances I carry a weapon.
Perhaps but in doing so you're getting yourself into an arms race with the criminals. A race you can only lose precisely because they are criminals and thus are likely to go further than you. How will carrying a gun help you against two or three greedy people? How will it help you if they carry bigger guns?
It was standard practice to take a weapon, often a rifle, when out on the farm. Groundhogs dig up huge holes that wreck tractors posing a life threatening circumstance, they also could create a situation where the cattle could break a leg, threatening the viability of the herd. We were to identify the holes to fill in, and shoot the poor little critters to thin their population. We also had the traditional "fox in the hen-house" problems. You protect your land.
Rifles are still legal in the UK for much the same reason. The sale of such weapons is much more heavily licensed than in the US but you can still get a rifle if you need one for that reason.
Additionally, I spent time doing field work out west. It is highly dangerous to spend any time in the back country of the American west. Between the people who might think you a claim jumper, and the various wild animals that might decide you are a tasty snack, you go armed. Period. You'll find that to be the case of many nationalities in many wildernesses. People who did field work in Alaska were issued .45's to help them convince grizzly bears that they were not worth snacking on (note, the cartridge was big enough to hurt the bear and make it go away, but not big enough to kill it). Bears, boars, wolves, coyotes, rattlesnakes. Some would hunt you, some would attack if startled. All of them were dangerous, and being armed helped make sure you at least survived the encounter. I carried a pistol in those days for those reasons.
Lacking natural predators in this country that's not a problem here. You might need a gun in the countryside but why would they need them in New York or Dallas?
-
They were too close in patrol, always leave a tank length between vehicles, those things don't turn on a dime.
No reverse gear either then...
Possibly, but this is China, the drivers were in a bit of a situation, reverse and they would be punished by their superiors, advance and be condemned by just about every nation on the planet, so the did the only thing they could, they just sat still.
-
They were too close in patrol, always leave a tank length between vehicles, those things don't turn on a dime.
No reverse gear either then...
Possibly, but this is China, the drivers were in a bit of a situation, reverse and they would be punished by their superiors, advance and be condemned by just about every nation on the planet, so the did the only thing they could, they just sat still.
I mean, the last one in the line could've reversed, then the others could have had a bit more freedom to move around.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ
They call it the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
Granted, many of you may not have been born, but thats no reason to be ignorant of history.
@kara:
Lacking natural predators in this country that's not a problem here. You might need a gun in the countryside but why would they need them in New York or Dallas?
Maybe you don't. Maybe you do, maybe you regulate it instead of outright prohibit it. Should Armored Car drivers be armed? They are civilian. As a matter of fact, in order to be a driver for Brinks I would need the very same permit I have as a civilian.
Perhaps but in doing so you're getting yourself into an arms race with the criminals. A race you can only lose precisely because they are criminals and thus are likely to go further than you. How will carrying a gun help you against two or three greedy people? How will it help you if they carry bigger guns?
Having the weapon increases the likelihood of surviving the encounter. No weapon, dead me, or lost important things, or both.
-
Actually, it was called the Tienanmen Square Protests, and then it became the massacre because of rather obvious reasons.
And yes, I remember it well :)
-
They know what it it is, Inquisitor. People learn this stuff in school.
-
You never can tell :)
Actually, now that I think about it Kara, my emotional response to Max aside, what rights are ok to revoke? Just ones involving weapons?
-
I don't learn anything from school.
"Random page" on Wikipedia is where I get my education from. Which explains a lot, really.
-
I learned from watching it on the News about 20 years ago, so I'm likely a bit rusty on the subject, since I've never really had call to research it further.
-
You never can tell :)
Actually, now that I think about it Kara, my emotional response to Max aside, what rights are ok to revoke? Just ones involving weapons?
Well, we don't have the right to bear cruise missiles. Everybody seems okay with that.
Same with cluster bombs.
Now, you might make the argument that these weapons are necessary for defense against other people with cruise missiles and cluster bombs. But we're largely willing to leave them up to the government.
So it seems okay to revoke a right if it's unlikely or impractical that it'll ever be exercised.
-
Actually Kara, re:Arms races, that's not strictly true, the criminals are very unlikely to have tanks and RPG's, so that leaves ti to small arms. Most critical incidents take place within 10 yards, and a .40 can be just as effective as a .223 at that range. So its not an arms race, even if they have M4's and all I have is my Sig. both are lethal and effective at the likely range of engagement.
Now, if I ever see an emplaced machine gun ambushing a civilian in the streets of Boston, I'll buy that arms race argument.
-edit-
Were we ever granted the right to WMD? It seems the second amendment focuses on personal arms and the right to maintain a militia?
-
It's not. As I explained to Warlock, believing you can protect yourself against the government with the kind of weapons you legally have access to is Red Dawn style fantasy. How long do you really think Waco would have lasted against a tyrannical government? They'd have just brought the artillery in and ended it within a few hours.
The same goes for foreign invasions. If the enemy have somehow gotten past the US armed forces it's hard to believe that someone is going to hold them off with a handgun.
not to mention that if the Us were to face any force big and powerful enough to get to their soil, they would pretty much draft everyone capable and give him a better weapon. That would make your regular citizen Joe a army member.
Having the weapon increases the likelihood of surviving the encounter. No weapon, dead me, or lost important things, or both.
It also increases the likelihood of the other guy shooting instead of just robbing you, thus counteracting that.
Your chances to survive have not changed at all.
-
Actually Kara, re:Arms races, that's not strictly true, the criminals are very unlikely to have tanks and RPG's, so that leaves ti to small arms. Most critical incidents take place within 10 yards, and a .40 can be just as effective as a .223 at that range. So its not an arms race, even if they have M4's and all I have is my Sig. both are lethal and effective at the likely range of engagement.
Now, if I ever see an emplaced machine gun ambushing a civilian in the streets of Boston, I'll buy that arms race argument.
SMG >>> handgun.
-
That depends entirely on the circumstances.
Blanket statements like that are Rambo-fantasies in and of themselves and belie a fundamental lack of understanding of small arms. An MP5 is not an automatic win in a gun fight. Its not some magic wand.
-
In gunfights, it's often not a question of who has the biggest gun, it's who lands the first hit with it.
-
Lacking natural predators in this country that's not a problem here. You might need a gun in the countryside but why would they need them in New York or Dallas?
What if I live in New York or Dallas, because, say I am a professor or work for an oil company there, but do field work in high country of Utah, Alaska, Wyoming?
When do you start drawing the line? Or is even that inappropriate? No, I am not saying every citizen in Dallas is moonlighting as Indiana Jones, but I am curious as to what, if any, are acceptable reasons for citizens to have guns?
-
To me, once again, that goes back to the question of responsibility. There isn't a person on this forum that is more than 1 minute away from an object that could be used to kill someone, it's a question of personal choice. If you lived in a city and needed a gun because you travelled for work then, yes, a gun is needed, but needs to be stored responsibly when it isn't.
There's been a fair few tragedies in the US lately, and many of them have involved improper storage of weapons, unlocked gun cases, easily accessible ammo etc. That is, to my mind, more of a problem than the simple existence of guns.
-
You will get absolutely no argument from me on that.
I am just trying to dial in Kara's point of view to a little more detail :)
-
The problem with saying that it's a matter of responsibility is that the same thing has been said for the last 20 years and no one has gotten any more responsible. Every single attempt to pass more restrictive laws in order to force responsibility gets blocked by the pro-gun lobby.
My argument has been that you either need to change America's culture so that you can use guns responsibly or you need to get rid of the guns. But no one is interested in changing the culture. Everyone talks about responsibility but no one is interested in actually taking it (or at least taking it beyond their immediate family and home). The result is small islands of people who can use guns responsibly in a sea of people who can't.
Who is actually interested in raising taxes in order to teach proper gun safety in schools? Who is interested in passing laws with stiff sentences for guns that aren't kept in lock boxes. Who is interested in making guns stamp bullets in order to help in the detection of crime (or even better making sure every weapon is test fired once and a database of the bullets kept)? Who is interested in requiring insurance for guns for accidental shootings (we require car insurance after all)? In general, who is interested in actually taking some steps to actually make gun ownership safer for the general public by ensuring that people are responsible?
Certainly not the pro-gun lobby. Who funnily enough are the exact same people who claim that people should be more responsible with their guns. It's all lip service so that they can carry on doing the exact same thing they've always done. I find it hilarious that anyone can say with a straight face that making people give up guns is a utopian solution but asking them to act responsibly with them isn't.
-
They were too close in patrol, always leave a tank length between vehicles, those things don't turn on a dime.
Actually they do, unlike wheeled vehicles!
-
That depends entirely on the circumstances.
Blanket statements like that are Rambo-fantasies in and of themselves and belie a fundamental lack of understanding of small arms. An MP5 is not an automatic win in a gun fight. Its not some magic wand.
Rly? If I can spew 6-10 bullets per second while you can barely manage 2 my chances of hitting you go up by a substantial margin.
SMG's are superior to handguns in every way - that's the reason SWAT and special forces use them and handguns are a emergency backup.
-
My argument has been that you either need to change America's culture so that you can use guns responsibly or you need to get rid of the guns.
OR you can just ignore the problem, right? Because no one wants to actually try to disarm the cold-dead-fingers-let's-go-civil-war-round-2 minority among gun owners and be responsible for instigating Waco times a billion, right? So we can have a little lip service from both sides; pro gun politicians advocate greater responsibility while fighting tooth and nail against even the most logical of restrictions, and their opponents trumpet the evil of firearms but continually find excuses for why now is not the right time to actually do something about them. Like most things, it reminds me of an episode of South Park, though this was about foreign policy rather than gun control:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103621
Actually, it's really not analogous at all, but I like South Park. Well, maybe it is sort of similar in that we as a country, after much noise and hot air, are continually able to bypass dealing with the awful, demoralizing heart of an issue that demands some real work (one way or the other) in favor of just going on our merrily retarded way like we always have. America, **** Yeah!
-
It also increases the likelihood of the other guy shooting instead of just robbing you, thus counteracting that.
Your chances to survive have not changed at all.
Any evidence?
A few threads ago I posted something about weapon use for self defence being IIRC anywhere from 80 to 300 thousand per year in the US (based on 15-ish surveys), and other stats showing that less than 1% (or 0.1%, I'd have to look it up again to be sure) of the incidents ended up as a firefight (that is if the 80k uses was the closest to reality).
You still use anecdotes.
And another thing to this debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Sniper_fire_commences
Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit
I give fuel for both the anti gun and pro gun crowd this time, since the guy would be less deadly with a knife, but on the other hand he'd be more deadly without civilians keeping him pinned down....
-
Rly? If I can spew 6-10 bullets per second while you can barely manage 2 my chances of hitting you go up by a substantial margin.
SMG's are superior to handguns in every way - that's the reason SWAT and special forces use them and handguns are a emergency backup.
I am not going to go to the trouble to post what is common knowledge in Law Enforcement circles when it s clear you haven't bothered to look. Though, for a hint. look up three-round bursts. Automatic weapons do not win just because they have a high rate of fire. Watch less TV and spend more time at the range.
Its not a magic wand. Anyone who says differently is an idiot with a short life expectancy in a firefight.
@kara:
The result is small islands of people who can use guns responsibly in a sea of people who can't.
Now we find our common ground, I think. The "pro-gun" lobby is IMHO largely an irresponsible entity with an entirely political agenda. it is lip service (hence "Guns don't kill people" yada yada). It seems to be fueled largely by quasi-anarchist leanings.
I would absolutely be giddy if the same people who wanted to teach religion in schools via evolution (in this country, they are very likely to be the same people) would apply those same "ethics" to firearms. I would pay taxes to teach that.
-
That depends entirely on the circumstances.
Blanket statements like that are Rambo-fantasies in and of themselves and belie a fundamental lack of understanding of small arms. An MP5 is not an automatic win in a gun fight. Its not some magic wand.
Rly? If I can spew 6-10 bullets per second while you can barely manage 2 my chances of hitting you go up by a substantial margin.
SMG's are superior to handguns in every way - that's the reason SWAT and special forces use them and handguns are a emergency backup.
*headdesk*
Ever fired a gun?
Ever read any reasonably well-researched police thrillers or military novels? Accounts of real-life firefights?
The theory of marksmanship you're espousing was discredited decades ago. You sound like a Soviet commissar: 'with massed rifle fire, we overcome Capitalist pig-dog marskmen!'
-
Yeah, I fired a gun. I know there are handhguns with automatic fire.
SMG's are still superior. Longer barrel, bigger magazine, two-hand grip, loads of possible attachments.
Say whatever you want, but there is a reason SWAT goes in with MP5's or .45 SMG's and not handguns.
-
But how many criminals are going to hold you up with a MP5? Too bulky, unable to be concealed easily, and expensive. In a simple robbery a .22, .38 or 9mm handgun is a much cheaper and concealable choice.
-
Yeah, I fired a gun. I know there are handhguns with automatic fire.
SMG's are still superior. Longer barrel, bigger magazine, two-hand grip, loads of possible attachments.
Say whatever you want, but there is a reason SWAT goes in with MP5's or .45 SMG's and not handguns.
Boy, like that French GIGN team that stormed an airplane with MP-5s and .357 revolvers?
Looks like the experts contradict you.
In any case, we're talking about home defense here, and both criminals and homeowners are likely to prefer handguns.
-
Plus, really it's the fear factor you're going for. There's little difference between having an SMG in your face or a pistol. You're still gonna piss your pants.
-
At a basic level your political conservatism is about 60% heritable. This doesn't assert itself until after age 20,
This keeps coming up, and I have to say [citation needed].
@Scotty: your attitude of saying "who cares" to everything just reinforces what I was saying about USA being a selfish rude culture. Thank you. Also, greater good = humanity.
I'm not selfish, I'm misanthropic :D. Besides, lets go back to sceince. You seem to be taking this as a "one person thinks this, therefore, everyone thinks this."
Another problem is parents in this country are allowed to make their kids obese and no one does anything about it. Lack of discipline. It is disgusting.
Congrats. Go make yourself a law saying that people can't be obese. Will never f*cking happen. You keep talking about how superior your lifesyle is to everyone else. Once again, "who cares?" Go live your life the way you want to, but leave me out of it.
You cannot make these assertions without DATA.
This is regarding the shut-down asylums and increases in crime and homelessness correct?
My step-dad is a social worker, gets his masters in two weeks. In his office (in Daytona, Fl.), he treats and tries to help over 200 mentally unstable persons. In 156 of those cases, the patients would have been committed thirty years earlier. 59 of those 156 have committed crimes in the last two years, including aggravated assault, robbery, illegal drug use, breaking and entering, trespassing and prostitution. That is just in the last two years. This is data for the South Daytona social work clinic 2006-2008. In conclusion, nearly 25% of the patients at that clinic would have been committed, but instead committed over 100 offenses. Data enough?
Because the constitution was written over 200 years ago.
And that by itself means it needs to be justified? Why don't we have to continually re-justify the Declaration of Independence?
Bush was arguably the most dictatorial president America has had for a while
Yeah, probably since FDR.
So you're saying that non-smokers who work in a bar can sue their employer if they develop lung cancer? If they can't then what is the difference from saying that people who worked in an unsafe chemical factory chose to do so and therefore can't sue. If they can, then you've opened a massive can of worms.
No. They chose to work there. Any side effects of said action is their own responsibility.
No one has to buy chemicals from my company they can go to a company with a good safety record if they want. We can let the market decide whether my customers want good safety practices or not.
You know, this sounds suspiciously like what I was saying.
You can't yell fire in a theatre, you can't take the running car because you think its pretty, Law defines what you can't do. What freedoms, besides the right to carry a weapon, would you have us surrender? The right to assembly perhaps?
Tank drivers are stupid.
GO AROUND much?
Has anyone seen what the tanks did to avoid hitting that guy? Watch the video again. The guy actually keeps walking in front of the tank, even when it turns.
To refresh your memory (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/jun/04/tiananmen.anniversary.china)
You're basically saying we always have done it so why should we stop.
A good question. Why should we?
The same goes for foreign invasions. If the enemy have somehow gotten past the US armed forces it's hard to believe that someone is going to hold them off with a handgun.
That's why you need A) more than just a handgun, and B) more than one person.
Having the weapon increases the likelihood of surviving the encounter
Thank you. How much better of a chance do you have with a weapon than by having absolutely nothing.
Well, we don't have the right to bear cruise missiles. Everybody seems okay with that.
Same with cluster bombs
Why does everyone ignore me when I say: "I draw the line at explosvies and mounted weapons"? Does no-one truly have an opinion, either for or against, to that?
It also increases the likelihood of the other guy shooting instead of just robbing you, thus counteracting that.
Your chances to survive have not changed at all.
It also increase the likelihood of the guy thinking "oh s***" and running off. Do we need to find the statistics for guns used in self defense again? I actually think I brought it up already this thread.
it's often not a question of who has the biggest gun, it's who lands the first hit with it.
Even better, who hands the most hits consecutively. Once again, people instantly dying of one bullet wound is movie stuff.
Who is actually interested in raising taxes in order to teach proper gun safety in schools? Who is interested in passing laws with stiff sentences for guns that aren't kept in lock boxes. Who is interested in making guns stamp bullets in order to help in the detection of crime (or even better making sure every weapon is test fired once and a database of the bullets kept)? Who is interested in requiring insurance for guns for accidental shootings (we require car insurance after all)? In general, who is interested in actually taking some steps to actually make gun ownership safer for the general public by ensuring that people are responsible?
Alright, in order of apperance by sentence:
A) Not me, it has been empircally shown that lowering taxes increases gov't revenue, because people have more money to spend, on which the gov't collects sales tax.
B) Not me. What use is a gun if you need to take 1-5 minutes to find the key, get the box open, remove the gun lock, load the weapon, and be ready to fire?
C) Iffy. They sort of already do that. There is a unique way every gun leaves a print of the shell of the bullet. That's how CSI people find suspects.
D) Iffy.
E) I am. But good luck with that.
A few threads ago I posted something about weapon use for self defence being IIRC anywhere from 80 to 300 thousand per year in the US (based on 15-ish surveys), and other stats showing that less than 1% (or 0.1%, I'd have to look it up again to be sure) of the incidents ended up as a firefight (that is if the 80k uses was the closest to reality).
That has in fact already been reposted on this thread, actually. It's around pages 4-8.
Rly? If I can spew 6-10 bullets per second while you can barely manage 2 my chances of hitting you go up by a substantial margin.
SMG's are superior to handguns in every way - that's the reason SWAT and special forces use them and handguns are a emergency backup.
If you can spew 6-10 bullets per secong, that just means you wasted 12-20 bullets when it doesn't hit the target because you can't aim worth s***. Have you ever actually fired an automatic weapon, or a gun at all for that matter? They buck like mules.
SMG's are still superior
Alright, think that if you want. But try puttin even 20% of that clip within 15 feet of a target from farther than 30 meters away. I can usually manage about ~40ish % with my dad's .380 PPKS.
Dang argument, keeps leaving me behind when I go to bed.
-
Citation right here, Scotty. I can give a few more if you want.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr & McGue, M (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4-45.
You cannot make these assertions without DATA.
No, that wasn't aimed at you. I know all about the issue of asylum shutdowns. It was aimed at High Max and something crazy he said.
It is unwise to assume everyone is yelling at you.
-
Yeah, I fired a gun. I know there are handhguns with automatic fire.
SMG's are still superior. Longer barrel, bigger magazine, two-hand grip, loads of possible attachments.
Say whatever you want, but there is a reason SWAT goes in with MP5's or .45 SMG's and not handguns.
Tell ya what....when you have personally tested automatic vs semi automatic in a firefight situation and not a range or video game. :D
Having nearly 30 years experience with semi autos, carrying an M-60 for 2 years and then having it replaced with a SAW for a year, all the while still using a M16A2 and low level training sessions or ranges, I can safely say that full auto is useless against single non massed targets.
Look it up for yourself, but the entire reason the army went to 3-round burst vs auto was testings proved after the third shot you're too far off target from the recoil for it to matter anymore. Autos are truely only effect for supressive fire.
So just to toss more fun in, shall we start the ban of swords?
I give you: Grandma killed by sword: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30136788/
@Kara I for one would be thrilled if they even seriously concidered allowing gun safety to be taught in schools. Even if it started as a Pay per student Opt in course! Course now you'll need to come up with a means of getting the "Guns are Evil!!" people to agree to pay that tax too. I mean since you seem to feel a "gun nut" won't pay to help keep his guns,...why would the ppl that want all guns melted or coverted into flower shooters pay for it?
Or ....as I believe I have posted in this thread already....we could simply add a license system and the fees for that could pay for a good chunk of it all. Gun prices would have to go up to cover such things are recording rifling patterns in a database and the like, though that is truely a wonderful idea that I'm all over ;) Serial numbers per weapon are a great start, but this idea would seriously help matters.
Oh and ....as said before. 2nd amend only protects, it doesn't give us anything.
-
Boy, like that French GIGN team that stormed an airplane with MP-5s and .357 revolvers?
Congratulations on finding one specific situation where handguns are favored.
Tell ya what....when you have personally tested automatic vs semi automatic in a firefight situation and not a range or video game. :D
Having nearly 30 years experience with semi autos, carrying an M-60 for 2 years and then having it replaced with a SAW for a year, all the while still using a M16A2 and low level training sessions or ranges, I can safely say that full auto is useless against single non massed targets.
Look it up for yourself, but the entire reason the army went to 3-round burst vs auto was testings proved after the third shot you're too far off target from the recoil for it to matter anymore. Autos are truely only effect for supressive fire.
You do realise that many SMG's also have a semi, burst or semi-auto modes of fire, don't you?
You use the fire mode which best suits the situation.....however, we have veered somewhat off-topic.
-
And you realise that your arguement was favoring automatic fire over semi-automatic fire right ? ;)
But yes we have veered slightly off the road a bit.
-
Only in so much as its a relevant thing to the whole education thing. Even though he's not in the US...
-
So you're saying that non-smokers who work in a bar can sue their employer if they develop lung cancer? If they can't then what is the difference from saying that people who worked in an unsafe chemical factory chose to do so and therefore can't sue. If they can, then you've opened a massive can of worms.
No. They chose to work there. Any side effects of said action is their own responsibility.
So should all workplace health and safety laws should be abandoned because the employee chose to work there then?
No one has to buy chemicals from my company they can go to a company with a good safety record if they want. We can let the market decide whether my customers want good safety practices or not.
You know, this sounds suspiciously like what I was saying.
It's meant to. I like to see how far down the path of lunacy people are willing to go.
-
@Kara I for one would be thrilled if they even seriously concidered allowing gun safety to be taught in schools. Even if it started as a Pay per student Opt in course! Course now you'll need to come up with a means of getting the "Guns are Evil!!" people to agree to pay that tax too. I mean since you seem to feel a "gun nut" won't pay to help keep his guns,...why would the ppl that want all guns melted or coverted into flower shooters pay for it?
Because it's still safer than the alternative.
Or ....as I believe I have posted in this thread already....we could simply add a license system and the fees for that could pay for a good chunk of it all. Gun prices would have to go up to cover such things are recording rifling patterns in a database and the like, though that is truely a wonderful idea that I'm all over ;) Serial numbers per weapon are a great start, but this idea would seriously help matters.
Oh and ....as said before. 2nd amend only protects, it doesn't give us anything.
Try getting it past the NRA though. Pretty much every example I gave has been suggested only to be shot down by them.
-
There is a significant difference between the "right" and the current lobby dedicated to "supporting" that right.
is there any room in your worldview for the "right" to exist in absentia of the NRA?
-
I tend to feel that if the general population of America didn't have the right to bear arms then the country would be safer. So no.
-
@Kara I for one would be thrilled if they even seriously concidered allowing gun safety to be taught in schools. Even if it started as a Pay per student Opt in course! Course now you'll need to come up with a means of getting the "Guns are Evil!!" people to agree to pay that tax too. I mean since you seem to feel a "gun nut" won't pay to help keep his guns,...why would the ppl that want all guns melted or coverted into flower shooters pay for it?
Because it's still safer than the alternative.
Ok so to convince us ahem....gun toting wackos...to pay a bit more for gun education there's a whole "to do" about it. .....but the "GunsREvL" group simply needs to be told: "It's safer than not doing it" and they'll pay higher taxes as well? God I'd love to see this tried out! Hell I'll be double my share just to see this :)
Or ....as I believe I have posted in this thread already....we could simply add a license system and the fees for that could pay for a good chunk of it all. Gun prices would have to go up to cover such things are recording rifling patterns in a database and the like, though that is truely a wonderful idea that I'm all over ;) Serial numbers per weapon are a great start, but this idea would seriously help matters.
Oh and ....as said before. 2nd amend only protects, it doesn't give us anything.
Try getting it past the NRA though. Pretty much every example I gave has been suggested only to be shot down by them.
[/quote] But we weren't discussing the goals and faults of the NRA. Least I don't recall that.
Now remember ppl, not all gun toting loonies agree with the NRA, nor was that part of debate.....we're debating the values of the right to have or the ban not to have firearms in general. Since we've discussed areas not of the US ....the NRA is a moot point there.
-
'Experience' and 'common sense' are innately flawed by heuristics. Deceptive and untrustworthy.
-
Deceptive huh?
Common sense tells me the rattlesnake is poisonous and not to touch it for fear of getting bitten and dying. I don't need a 30 page scientific essay to tell me that.
Experience is what allows a 60 year old martial artist to lay his younger, faster, more agile opponent on the ground. By every measure he shouldn't be able to, but he does. It also tells a mechanic what's wrong with your car, just by listening to it.
Common sense and experience are what temper pure logic and intelligence and give rise to what should be the goal of every human alive, Reason. :cool:
-
I was going to post some fiery response to Trash's earlier idiocy, but by the time I got to the end of the thread my rage had passed and others had already said what I would have. So...
I'm not really sure where I stand on gun control. I like guns. I like shooting them. I like learning how they work. I'm not nuts about collecting them though; all I own is a .22 rifle for shooting snakes and vermin. I'm also *really* *frakking* careful with them and I understand that there are a lot of people who lack such care. I guess I agree that better education and regulation is the way to go, but I don't know how to go about implementing it. Aww who am I kidding? I always just end up restating the obvious in these kind of threads. I just wanted to try and say something on topic instead of just ragging on Trashman.
-
Deceptive huh?
Common sense tells me the rattlesnake is poisonous and not to touch it for fear of getting bitten and dying. I don't need a 30 page scientific essay to tell me that.
Experience is what allows a 60 year old martial artist to lay his younger, faster, more agile opponent on the ground. By every measure he shouldn't be able to, but he does. It also tells a mechanic what's wrong with your car, just by listening to it.
Common sense and experience are what temper pure logic and intelligence and give rise to what should be the goal of every human alive, Reason. :cool:
:lol:
You're misunderstanding the words.
'Experience' doesn't mean 'training', as in the examples you gave. A two-month-old baby has experiences every day. You experience the world.
There's no common sense whatsoever involved in that asinine rattlesnake example. You can employ your visual or aural system and memory to spot the rattlesnake. You draw on what you've been taught to recognize the rattlesnake as poisonous and dangerous. No 'common sense' there.
There are obvious counterexamples to everything you just said. 'Common sense' tells you the Earth is flat. 'Experience' tells you that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Both wrong.
You're spouting random philosophy. You also don't have a clue what 'science' is. You also think I'm suggesting everyone needs to think with science, which is stupid -- science is an investigative tool.
Common sense and experience are also great tools. But they aren't trustworthy or objective. They need to be supplemented and checked. It's like the US government -- multiple branches of knowledge each aiding and restricting each other.
Now, let's take some cases of 'common sense'. There are a number of cognitive heuristics that lead humans to make consistently biased decisions. Affect heuristics. Confirmation bias. Ingroup/outgroup bias. Look 'em up.
Give a man a roulette wheel that's seventy percent black and thirty percent red. Tell him the last ten runs have come up black. Most people will guess red's coming up next -- since it's red's turn. This is an example of a heuristic.
Or look up 'losses loom larger than gains.' Another heuristic.
Stereotypes are another great example of a heuristic -- a cognitive shortcut.
Learn some psychology. First, you'll gain some idea what I'm talking about when I say 'common sense' and 'experience'. Second, you'll learn why they're not foolproof ways to examine the world.
You don't have any access to objective reality. You understand things through your senses and your mind. Both are flawed tools. Supplement them and you'll make better decisions.
-
Learn some psychology. First, you'll gain some idea what I'm talking about when I say 'common sense' and 'experience'. Second, you'll learn why they're not foolproof ways to examine the world.
Third, you'll come to understand why you're the only courteous driver on the road while the rest of the country is a bunch of rude, frothing douche bags whose only joy in life is cutting you off in traffic. And many other neat things like why you don't see your eyes move when you look back and forth between them in the mirror. Intro to Psych, though way too easy, was the best non-major course of my undergrad experience. Anyway, back to the guns.
-
Methinks Max misunderstands the word "confront."
And the context of "emotional" now that I read that post again...
I have no desire to confront you physically (ok, maybe initially I thought you needed a good smack upside the head, but that's hardly likely to happen). Your apparent ideology is so close to the sort of thing that if prevalent, does lead a society to that picture above. Just give up a free freedoms for the sake of the state, the state will take care of you, etc...
My response was emotional because instead of using words, I posted a picture and the words I did post were a bit flippant. After I posted, I realized I had a similar question for kara. Hence my caveat to him.
I find it telling that you might think it some sort of threat.
-
What is the current procedure for getting a gun in the United States?
-
This thread has a tendency to leave me without words. An incredible feat in itself.
I again point that what works in another culture does not necessarily work in others. I think the violent crime (killings, murders, stabbings) actually dropped here when firearms became available. Back then there were some skilled individuals in the knife play that nobody could approach, so firearms actually made people more equal. Note that they have been relatively well controlled since the beginning (not only by goverment but also by parents). There is nothing else to it and I don't expect it to work elsewhere.
I think the main issue is the street violence and why it is allowed to exist. It is related to easy availability of firearms yes (but other weapons work as well!), but I don't believe banning firearms would help much. It sounds more like the police isn't doing their job, or cannot do their job, or that the society does not support the police to do their job well. Bear in mind I view the issue from Scandinavian point of view. And I have a gut feeling that the situation was not like this in the US during 1960's, while the availability of the firearms was about as good as it is now.
And lastly, I think that if you feel you must carry a firearm, it is better not to conceal it.
That being said, I will not reply to this thread any more. I find some of the comments downright repulsive.
Mika
-
Ah, the old "I'm going to say my piece and then run away before anyone can challenge my opinion" gambit.
Which should really be met with the "Since you don't want to debate, we'll ignore you" response. :p
-
This will be my last post.
As you were.
-DSmart [3000AD]
-
What is the current procedure for getting a gun in the United States?
There is no single procedure. There are various processes in each state, some states allow you to own a firearm just by being a resident (New Hampshire is supposedly like that), others, like Massachusetts where I currently live, require a fairly rigorous (at least in intent, its operational details leave some things to be desired) procedure including formal safety training (with a requirement to pass), background check, fingerprinting and interview with the Chief of the local Police Department, and then you may only be allowed to own, but not transport certain types of firearms. The rules do indeed vary from state to state. Some states allow open carry but not concealed (Ohio was like that for a really long time), and some states (again, like MA) prohibit ANY kind of open carry unless you are a specially licensed security professional.
Its a bit of a crapshoot, depending on where you live.
There are also federal licenses granted by the ATF for the purpose of collecting certain types of firearms, and many states have reciprocity rules that allow you to get a permit there, if you already possess one from a qualifying state.
For the record, I have a Class A Carry permit in MA (technically restricted to certain activities), a reciprocal pistol permit from NH, and a BATF Federal Firearms License for Curious and Relics. That means that the State of MA, State of NH, my local Police Department and the ATF have all investigated my background, and found me to be un-criminal and safe enough to own and carry a weapon. The process for each license took at least a month, sometimes more.
-
What is the current procedure for getting a gun in the United States?
There is no single procedure. There are various processes in each state, some states allow you to own a firearm just by being a resident (New Hampshire is supposedly like that), others, like Massachusetts where I currently live, require a fairly rigorous (at least in intent, its operational details leave some things to be desired) procedure including formal safety training (with a requirement to pass), background check, fingerprinting and interview with the Chief of the local Police Department, and then you may only be allowed to own, but not transport certain types of firearms. The rules do indeed vary from state to state. Some states allow open carry but not concealed (Ohio was like that for a really long time), and some states (again, like MA) prohibit ANY kind of open carry unless you are a specially licensed security professional.
Its a bit of a crapshoot, depending on where you live.
There are also federal licenses granted by the ATF for the purpose of collecting certain types of firearms, and many states have reciprocity rules that allow you to get a permit there, if you already possess one from a qualifying state.
For the record, I have a Class A Carry permit in MA (technically restricted to certain activities), a reciprocal pistol permit from NH, and a BATF Federal Firearms License for Curious and Relics. That means that the State of MA, State of NH, my local Police Department and the ATF have all investigated my background, and found me to be un-criminal and safe enough to own and carry a weapon. The process for each license took at least a month, sometimes more.
So it's easier to get a gun than a driver's licence in New Hampshire? Shouldn't it be more uniform and more like the case you've just described (Massachusetts)?
-
What is the current procedure for getting a gun in the United States?
There is no single procedure. There are various processes in each state, some states allow you to own a firearm just by being a resident (New Hampshire is supposedly like that), others, like Massachusetts where I currently live, require a fairly rigorous (at least in intent, its operational details leave some things to be desired) procedure including formal safety training (with a requirement to pass), background check, fingerprinting and interview with the Chief of the local Police Department, and then you may only be allowed to own, but not transport certain types of firearms. The rules do indeed vary from state to state. Some states allow open carry but not concealed (Ohio was like that for a really long time), and some states (again, like MA) prohibit ANY kind of open carry unless you are a specially licensed security professional.
Its a bit of a crapshoot, depending on where you live.
There are also federal licenses granted by the ATF for the purpose of collecting certain types of firearms, and many states have reciprocity rules that allow you to get a permit there, if you already possess one from a qualifying state.
For the record, I have a Class A Carry permit in MA (technically restricted to certain activities), a reciprocal pistol permit from NH, and a BATF Federal Firearms License for Curious and Relics. That means that the State of MA, State of NH, my local Police Department and the ATF have all investigated my background, and found me to be un-criminal and safe enough to own and carry a weapon. The process for each license took at least a month, sometimes more.
So it's easier to get a gun than a driver's licence in New Hampshire? Shouldn't it be more uniform and more like the case you've just described (Massachusetts)?
Its on the license plate Live Free or Die :D
-
If its to be believed, a drivers license is how they prove residency. So its exactly the same difficulty.
And yes, I think it should be a lot more rigorous than "do you have a pulse and can you drive a car" ;)
-
I think I know what is bothering me about Kara's "just because you have the right doesn't mean you should keep having it" etc argument.
That concept is the whole basis for our legal system, precedence. Its pretty fundamental.
Maybe a different thread, but why is precedence bad in this case, but good in others, or do you think that the concept of precedence itself should be abolished?
-
Precedence simply means that the question has been asked once before and the judge ruled one way. It isn't set in stone. Another judge should always be able to rule another way if circumstances change enough that it bears re-examination.
Certain rights are obviously so set in stone that circumstances will probably never change enough to warrant re-examination (Right to free speech, etc).
Remember that the constitution was written during a time when slavery was legal. Had the UK been thirty years more advanced with the abolitionism movement there's a reasonable chance that America might have revolted over that and included "The right to own slaves" in the constitution.
Let's pretend that had happened. Would you still be arguing about precedence?
-
Probably not, but I don't see this as the same, since by (an albeit grudging admission) you concede there may be reasons to own firearms. Slavery on the other hand, I think we agree there are no reasons for that. One might argue the right to arms would be a good way to prevent that from happening again, actually.
Is the right to keep personal arms and bear arms and form a regulated militia the only one on the bill of rights that you disagree with?
The notion of precedence is powerfully central to laws and rights though, its hard to simply dismiss it because you don't agree with it.
-
Remember that the constitution was written during a time when slavery was legal. Had the UK been thirty years more advanced with the abolitionism movement there's a reasonable chance that America might have revolted over that and included "The right to own slaves" in the constitution.
Only issue with that is that the colonists revolted over taxation without representation. They didn't break with the U.K. simply becuase it was the U.K.
Let's pretend that had happened. Would you still be arguing about precedence?
Yes :). I don't change my mind easily.
Another judge should always be able to rule another way if circumstances change enough that it bears re-examination.
And what has changed so much that we need to re-examine the 2nd Amendment?
-
He's been making that argument for several posts now, gun violence, the efficacy of personal firearms when it comes to resisting an unjust modern government, etc. I may not agree with his conclusions, but he has been making and effort to make the case.
-
Oh yeah, you ask where do you draw the line when it comes to giving up rights? I could ask you where do you draw the line when it comes to adding rights and freedoms and taking away restrictions and morals?
When your rights and freedoms interfere with other people's rights and freedoms. That's where the line is.
In other words, I cannot force you to do something, neither could you do that to me. I cannot take anything that's yours or do anything you'd consider hostile, and vice versa.
Now, where's the line in taking rights away?
And lastly, I think that if you feel you must carry a firearm, it is better not to conceal it.
In the State of Michigan you'd get a citation for disorderly conduct if you open carry.
But I do agree that open carry would work even better as a deterrent than concealed carry, just like marked police cars get more people to stick to the speed limit (unless everyone knows there's an unmarked somewhere- it could be miles away but people still fear it and obey the rules- that would be similar to concealed carry).
-
Is the right to keep personal arms and bear arms and form a regulated militia the only one on the bill of rights that you disagree with?
Actually no. While the majority of the Bill of Rights is something I can agree with off the top of my head I can think of at least one other part I do have an issue with.
Until 2003, England and Wales had much the same double jeopardy rules as America. However they were changed to allow retrials "if there is "new" and "compelling" evidence for crimes, including murder, but also manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes"
AFAIK the change has only been used once (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm). So long as it is only used very sparingly, I 100% agree with the change. It allows the retrial of cases like the Stephen Lawrence murder where bungling and corruption of the police resulted in an aquittal when the evidence clearly should have lead to a conviction. In addition it would allow the retrying of cases where DNA evidence and new forensic techniques would have resulted a conviction had they existed when the original trial was carried out.
Of course you'll never get a similar law passed in the US because it is unconstitutional. Yes, revoking double jeopardy can be abused. Which is why the law included several checks and balances. To be honest, any law can be perverted if you try hard enough and I'd rather live in a country where a single technicality won't result in a criminal being on the streets.
The notion of precedence is powerfully central to laws and rights though, its hard to simply dismiss it because you don't agree with it.
You've already dismissed it though. You've agreed that precedent can be dispensed with if it is unjust (slavery, prohibition too most likely), so the question is simply where you draw the line. I personally do not hold that a decision made 200 years previously is inviolate. It must still be a just decision today for it to be binding on me.
-
Only after careful deliberation and much debate.
Every time that happens here with 2nd amendment, it manages to survive. To Scotty's point, your argument is not compelling enough to ban firearms. Too many reasons to actually own them that make sense.
at some point, I suspect we will have to respectfully agree to disagree, but this at least helps me zero in on your prime objections.
-
Only after careful deliberation and much debate.
Thing is that in my view I see very little deliberation. While you seem to at least be taking a fairly balanced view of things far too many people on both sides have already made up their minds and will simply spout ridiculous truisms in favour of their side.
Every time that happens here with 2nd amendment, it manages to survive.
I doubt that has much to do with the argument and everything to do with the fact that Americans love their guns and get all Charlton Heston about the idea of having them taken away from them.
To Scotty's point, your argument is not compelling enough to ban firearms. Too many reasons to actually own them that make sense.
Yeah, but look what I'm dealing with. He said in his last post that if slavery was in the constitution he wouldn't change his mind about that either. :p (And if he wasn't saying that, I don't have the faintest clue what he was on about).
-
He said in his last post that if slavery was in the constitution he wouldn't change his mind about that either.
Exactly, I wouldn't change my mind. I usually have it made up one way or the other. In that case, against, in all cases racial, religious, or discriminatory.
-
Ah, the old "I'm going to say my piece and then run away before anyone can challenge my opinion" gambit.
Which should really be met with the "Since you don't want to debate, we'll ignore you" response. :p
It's the best when the comment are provocative and/or full of weird statements such as "I think that X is a fact" without anything to back it up and then you run away
"thread****ting" is the proper term for this
-
I think Wolverine was a 5'6" Canadian not a 6ft Australian :nervous:
Seriously though, Americans do still have this thing in common with the English, Limpet Syndrome, the harder you try to convince us that something we are doing is bad, the more stubborn we will become about doing it ;)
That, I think in part, plays a role here, try to tell people that their guns shouldn't be allowed and it's a recipe for an outcry, even scaling back the guns, banning automatic weapons, has caused an outcry, you cannot change a culture from the outside imposing inwards.
-
I think Wolverine was a 5'6" Canadian not a 6ft Australian :nervous:
Seriously though, Americans do still have this thing in common with the English, Limpet Syndrome, the harder you try to convince us that something we are doing is bad, the more stubborn we will become about doing it ;)
That, I think in part, plays a role here, try to tell people that their guns shouldn't be allowed and it's a recipe for an outcry, even scaling back the guns, banning automatic weapons, has caused an outcry, you cannot change a culture from the outside imposing inwards.
I don't know.... I tend to think that having a gun is a necessity in America, since it's so big. On the one hand, the gun is a terrible weapon. On the other hand, there can never be enough policemen to keep the whole of America in check.
There is also the problem of "moving forwards". Having a gun is the right of an American. If the gun policy was changed such that no one except the police and the military can hold guns, you may have the following:
1. Civilians who will adhere to the new policy and dispose of their guns;
2. Civilians who won't and will still keep a gun "just in case";
3. Crooks, who won't because it won't help them very much; and
4. Gunsmiths, because the gun is their livelihood.
-
Exactly, it's a culture now, kind of like a food cycle, you cannot affect one part of it without massively upsetting the balance of the other parts. It's gone beyond a law now and is an integral part of the society and the economy of the US.
I think imposing laws from outside, be it Washington, or any kind of world government would be pointless, won't work, no-one's going to look away or blink first, the only way to rid the US of guns would be for one of two things to happen:
1) 'Age of Aquarius-esque' - A Wave of peace and love sweeps across the world brining all nations together in love and harmony. I'll leave you to work out the odds on that one.
2) Guns are made obsolete, their is no point carrying a firearm because it is now impossible to harm someone with one because of new body armour/personal protection field etc. This is more likely than item one, which is about all I can say about it, and, without doubt, such protection would have a limited lifespan before weapons tech catches up.
So really, the fact is that guns in the US are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.
I do agree hiwever that more could be done to identify and track guns and ammunition, that would do a great deal towards dis-inclining people towards using them for criminal purposes.
-
I think Wolverine was a 5'6" Canadian not a 6ft Australian :nervous:
Seriously though, Americans do still have this thing in common with the English, Limpet Syndrome, the harder you try to convince us that something we are doing is bad, the more stubborn we will become about doing it ;)
That, I think in part, plays a role here, try to tell people that their guns shouldn't be allowed and it's a recipe for an outcry, even scaling back the guns, banning automatic weapons, has caused an outcry, you cannot change a culture from the outside imposing inwards.
I don't know.... I tend to think that having a gun is a necessity in America, since it's so big. On the one hand, the gun is a terrible weapon. On the other hand, there can never be enough policemen to keep the whole of America in check.
There is also the problem of "moving forwards". Having a gun is the right of an American. If the gun policy was changed such that no one except the police and the military can hold guns, you may have the following:
1. Civilians who will adhere to the new policy and dispose of their guns;
2. Civilians who won't and will still keep a gun "just in case";
3. Crooks, who won't because it won't help them very much; and
4. Gunsmiths, because the gun is their livelihood.
What? What?
Having a gun is by no means a necessity in America. At all.
-
It's embedded into American culture, so now it is.
-
It's embedded into American culture, so now it is.
Not in this state. The concept of "American culture" is a poor one. There's a world of difference between East and West Coast, North and South, etc. This is a big country.
-
It's embedded into American culture, so now it is.
No it's not.
There is no American culture. Nothing unified.
And if there was, having guns would not be a majority part of it. Most Americans don't own guns and don't want one.
Where do you get these ideas anyway?
-
The Culture is that the Right to have a gun is one that should never be taken away, the fact that there will always be the argument that criminals will not let go of their guns, so if we let go of ours, we make ourselves vulnerable. You cannot argue with that because, at heart, it is now true.
I'd just as easily say there is no English culture, there is certainly no single British Culture, but there are certain things that are a universal to all aspects of the UK, in the US it is the majority belief that, even if you do not own a gun, you should posses the right to arm yourself if need be.
I'm in no real position to judge whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not in the US, I don't know the myriad of reasons that someone might have to own a gun over there.
I don't think it would reduce crimes, criminals are criminals and humans are imaginative, so the only real solution is to tackle the reasons that push people into committing crimes in the first place, and even then, you'll always get the good old fashioned nutters who walk through a school firing indiscriminately because they believe humanity doesn't deserve to exist. Nuke, for example ;)
The Bill of Rights, that thing that does a lot towards putting the 'U' in 'US', that is your culture, your belief in Freedom of Choice, that is your culture, everyone from Glenn Beck to Jeff Beck, that is your culture, and guns, and the right to own one, are instrinsically linked to it, you gained your country by rising up against an establishment, and you've always remembered that, something in you will never let that go.
-
The Culture is that the Right to have a gun is one that should never be taken away, the fact that there will always be the argument that criminals will not let go of their guns, so if we let go of ours, we make ourselves vulnerable. You cannot argue with that because, at heart, it is now true.
I'd just as easily say there is no English culture, there is certainly no single British Culture, but there are certain things that are a universal to all aspects of the UK, in the US it is the majority belief that, even if you do not own a gun, you should posses the right to arm yourself if need be.
That's not true at all.
There are large portions of the population that would disagree.
-
I find that somewhat hard to believe to be honest, certainly not from the reactions I've seen to gun bans. You had a bunch of people shot only a few weeks ago because someone thought 'Obama was going to take away his guns', now, I'll admit that is News and therefore heard from further away, but I find it very hard to accept that the NRA is as large an influence in the US as it is, if it is not making a great deal of money, and it makes a great deal of money by selling a great deal of merchandise.
Edit: Even if you include military spending, the hold the NRA has over public opinion still makes this seem unlikely to me.
-
You need national poll data on a number of factors -- not just 'do you believe people should have the right to bear arms' -- to assess public attitude towards guns.
-
Oh yes, opinions vary as to what degree of weapons can be considered 'self defence', I'll accept that, but getting Americans to hand over their guns is kind of like asking the English not to put milk in a cup of tea, it's not illegal, it's not really against any cultural taboo, it's just an idea that many English people can't really get their heads around.
-
Oh yes, opinions vary as to what degree of weapons can be considered 'self defence', I'll accept that, but getting Americans to hand over their guns is kind of like asking the English not to put milk in a cup of tea, it's not illegal, it's not really against any cultural taboo, it's just an idea that many English people can't really get their heads around.
Evidence?
Where I am nobody owns a gun and few want one, and it's quite a large city. Crime isn't exactly low, guns just aren't seen as the smart way to handle defense.
-
We are both debating without citation here, and that's probably for the best, I don't doubt we could both find evidence to support our points of view, maybe you are in an area that feels that way, but that's not the same as saying that they believe that no-one should have the right to carry one. If the majority did not accept that the right to own a gun was an acceptable one, there wouldn't be the level of trouble with restricting them that there is.
-
I think imposing laws from outside, be it Washington, or any kind of world government would be pointless, won't work, no-one's going to look away or blink first, the only way to rid the US of guns would be for one of two things to happen
You missed one. Ban the sale of bullets and new guns. Problem solves itself within 1000 years. :)
-
I think imposing laws from outside, be it Washington, or any kind of world government would be pointless, won't work, no-one's going to look away or blink first, the only way to rid the US of guns would be for one of two things to happen
You missed one. Ban the sale of bullets and new guns. Problem solves itself within 1000 years. :)
tl;dr
Or as Chris Brown said in "Bowling for Columbine", they should crank the price of bullets to $1000 each, that way the guy who wants to kill you has to get a job...or two, there's always the black market...but it'll stop your basic crim for sure. However unloaded weapons make great hand-to-hand combat implements.
-
I think imposing laws from outside, be it Washington, or any kind of world government would be pointless, won't work, no-one's going to look away or blink first, the only way to rid the US of guns would be for one of two things to happen
You missed one. Ban the sale of bullets and new guns. Problem solves itself within 1000 years. :)
You can make an American Civil War-type blackpowder musket using your oven and garage. And it will only get easier. I know of someone who was making replica Henry and Spencer repeaters in their garage back east. Good ones too, $750-$1000 is a lot for a replica gun but he never had trouble selling them.
-
Pretty hard to sell them when the sale of bullets is banned though.
You'll always have a criminal element trying to do stuff like that.
-
Pretty hard to sell them when the sale of bullets is banned though.
You can make Minnie balls in your oven. :P Hell, I remember my father actually doing so, because authentic ammunition for a civil-war musket is impossible to find.
-
Thing is that in my view I see very little deliberation. While you seem to at least be taking a fairly balanced view of things far too many people on both sides have already made up their minds and will simply spout ridiculous truisms in favour of their side.
That's unfortunately also human nature, sadly not just restricted to American politics.
-
There are large portions of the population that would disagree.
And that's what's beautiful about America- people say and think and believe in whatever they want.
Or as Chris Brown said in "Bowling for Columbine", they should crank the price of bullets to $1000 each, that way the guy who wants to kill you has to get a job...or two, there's always the black market...but it'll stop your basic crim for sure. However unloaded weapons make great hand-to-hand combat implements.
Pretty hard to sell them when the sale of bullets is banned though.
You'll always have a criminal element trying to do stuff like that.
Look what happened during the Prohibition. America didn't exactly stop drinking when alcohol was illegal.
Then there's the fact that the "basic crim" doesn't buy ammo (or guns) at a gun store- I think they require some form of an ID check in many states for ammo, and a permit to buy a gun.
-
Something else that's been bothering me about the debate here, and I think GB puts his finger on it. THere is really no unified view, and, there is VIGOROUS debate on the subject, regularly. Just last night was a big special on 20/20 (which I am sure was as fair and balanced as Fox news), and just last year (or maybe the year before) there was another huge legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
There are a huge number of opponents, and a huge number of proponents. Big country.
-edit-
Speaking of http://abcnews.go.com/2020
Interesting video.
-
I'm not particularly interested in shooting down any of your arguments, Inquisitor; you seem fair-minded and rational.
I just don't like this absurd stereotype Androgeous (also usually quite fair-minded and rational, mind) has about Americans.
-
I agree :)
It seems a one dimensional view of America and Americans. The debate here is just as vigorous between Americans, Kara et al. might be surprised ;)
I am an anomaly in this debate, by the way (in that I am for consistently enforce, regulated sale and possession laws). If I had to guess, Warlock represents a more typical proponent, knowing very little about his views other than what I see in this thread, that's only a guess.
-
I just don't like this absurd stereotype Androgeous (also usually quite fair-minded and rational, mind) has about Americans.
The problem is that shootings in America seem to happen quite often ... or as my local newspaper reports them. In retrospect, it is heavily biased because shootings occur all over the world, not just in America, so if the gun was a necessity for Americans, it would be a necessity for everyone in the world, and it just isn't.
-
Not trying to be funny or anything, but the general stereotype is neutral:
Americans think Brits sit around drinking tea. Brits thing Americans sit around eating burgers.
-
I just don't like this absurd stereotype Androgeous (also usually quite fair-minded and rational, mind) has about Americans.
The problem is that shootings in America seem to happen quite often ... or as my local newspaper reports them. In retrospect, it is heavily biased because shootings occur all over the world, not just in America, so if the gun was a necessity for Americans, it would be a necessity for everyone in the world, and it just isn't.
Exactly. And in any case it's a big leap from 'shootings happen often' to 'everybody needs a gun to protect themselves.'
-
Not trying to be funny or anything, but the general stereotype is neutral:
Americans think Brits sit around drinking tea. Brits thing Americans sit around eating burgers.
Well, if you want some good American stereotypes, Jeremy Clarkson could give you a few... :nervous:
-
I agree :)
It seems a one dimensional view of America and Americans. The debate here is just as vigorous between Americans, Kara et al. might be surprised ;)
I am an anomaly in this debate, by the way (in that I am for consistently enforce, regulated sale and possession laws). If I had to guess, Warlock represents a more typical proponent, knowing very little about his views other than what I see in this thread, that's only a guess.
I wouldn't say I represent a typical proponent. I'm in complete agreement on better registration for new and used firearms, renewable licensing for firearms as well as ammo, I'm all for the idea of building a rifling database to track spent rounds.
The "A Typical" Pro Gun advocate could simply be viewed with the typical phrase "You'll take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!"
I'm simply against an outright ban of firearms. Banning ammo would only boost sales of ammo making equipment.
It's really rather simple to make your own ammo, even alot of modern ammo. I used to target shoot civil war era replicas. I have a custom CS Richmond Carbine and Musket, making 500 rounds ea takes me about 2 hours, which really is mostly time for the lead to melt on a single burner and then time to cool enough to wax the base of the round. Measuring out black powder loads takes roughly 1 hour for 1000 rounds with decent equipment.
Oh and as to the whole "No reason at all for firearms" debates:
Many carry a rifle or pistol when out in the wilderness. From farmers checking on land, to hikers, surveyors, etc. They most carry at least something to protect themselves for wildlife. A rabid dog isn't something you can converse with and talk out of attacking you ;)
Hunting. Not always a matter of sport. Many still hunt for food. While not a need for food, there are many people that enjoy such food, some whom it is a way of life. Plus thinning out populations. As we build more and more urban areas, the animal population gets more and more compacted into smaller areas. Its much kinder to shoot an animal with a firearm than make it into a hood ornament.
Simplest reason: Targetting sports. It is still a hobby of many, hell it's an olympic sport.
Those are just a small toss out of rights that would be removed from law abiding citizens if firearms were banned. It's not always just a matter of crime and protection.
-
Most of the American population, however, lives in cities or suburbs, where hunting and target shooting are uncommon and impractical, and wandering about the wilderness isn't likely to happen.
-
Because noone in a city ever drives 20-50 miles and leaves that city for any amount of time at all right?
I purposely listed a couple reasons that actually included city living perons. Hikers and Surveyors. Not all hikers simply go to a park and hiker along "civilized" trails, and surveyors commonly are in nearly all areas marking property lines, state lines, etc.
So just because most may live in a city or other urban area,...that itself is a moot point.
-
Again, those people represent a minority of the population.
I think you're arguing against some implicit point you think I'm making. All I'm pointing out is that even if guns were easy to get most people wouldn't need or want them.
-
Wether or not "most" people wouldn't need or want them (which is your opinion of course) that minority still has to be represented when concidering an outright ban of firearms. Or out right ban of anything else for that matter.
Majority may rule but the minority does have the right to argue their point.
Again my post before was citing examples of firearms useage that wasn't to commit a crime or protect against a crime,....since that seems to be the sole reasons discussed in this debate. But if you'd rather simply handwave those away, that's up to you ;)
-
And I agree with Warlock :)
Its nice when we all get along :)
That's actually a good counter (in my opinion) to some of the earlier rejecting of rights. Just because its not a majority is no reason to deny a right.
Defending against a crime is a red herring. Concentrate on the other legit reasons to own these things, then ask how can you fairly allow them. If some people do have a need, how do you judge what groups are denied without also getting into something that ends up arbitrarily discriminatory?
The 20/20 videos were interesting, by the way, did anyone watch them?
-
A few loopholes there. Murders per country wouldn't be a true gauge since the US has a fairly large population compared to most other countries. It also has a much better media and general information tracking that many, which is both good and bad at times.
Now if the list were murders with firearms by 100,000 or somesuch, it would be a bit of a better means to guage the US vs other smaller countries.
Personally I still hold much doubt as to the US being one of the most dangerous countries to live. I'd more likely to believe certain countries in the middle east, africa, the smaller nations that sprang up out of the USSR, are a bit more dangerous. But again it's a personal opinion and I'm really not concerned enough to look into it (read as: lazy today) :)
-
Just check rapes. USA is first place. Of course many of the rape stories were surely made up by bad girls and feminists telling lies to police officers to try and get men they hate in trouble.
You really have a knack for saying things that are primo grade A flamefuel, you know that? Rape is one of those crimes which, unlike murder or theft, are shameful to admit to for the victim. Noone likes to admit they have been powerless, so there's a large amount of rapes that go unpunished. the fact that, in the US, women are actually able to go to the police and get those bastards convicted, is a good thing IMHO. There may be some people who did what you've described, but I guess that those cases are by far in the minority.
In my experience, when making statements like the above, it is usually advisable to either back them up with hard data, or encapsulate them using things like "In my opinion..", "I believe" or "I suspect". Takes the sting off a bit. Speaking ex cathedra, as you are fond of doing, incites disagreement not only because of what you said, but also because of the way you said it.
-
Don't want to be a huge jerk, but if I were in the same room as you, High Max, I'd hit you for saying that.
Thank goodness there are people like The E around. Bastions of sense.
-
If he keeps making bull**** comments like that, I'm just gonna walk away.
Most of the American population, however, lives in cities or suburbs, where hunting and target shooting are uncommon and impractical, and wandering about the wilderness isn't likely to happen.
Well, good to see that you're content to never leave a city :D.
Again, those people represent a minority of the population.
Doesn't really matter. It's still a portion. Anyway, a minority could be only 149 million out of 300 million people.
Maybe this topic can reach 100 pages.
If you stop posting flamebait like the rape statement.
That just proves what I felt all along about USA being one of the most dangerous countries to live in worldwide.
Pretty damn subjective truth there.
And I agree with Warlock :)
Its nice when we all get along :)
:D
Defending against a crime is a red herring.
But it still happens, you can't discount the minority.
Murders per country wouldn't be a true gauge
Who wants to be who'd bet in the top ten :D.
EDIT: Fixed a spelling error.
-
Captain Oblivious
-
Most of the American population, however, lives in cities or suburbs, where hunting and target shooting are uncommon and impractical, and wandering about the wilderness isn't likely to happen.
Well, good to see that you're content to never leave a city :D.
Don't be a jerk. It's incredibly presumptuous of you to think that I'd only mention living in cities or suburbs if I lived in a city or suburb.
I live (lived) in a rural area in a state without a single real city. There were routinely bears, dear, and coyotes in my backyard and the hunting seasons are bountiful. My family owns firearms. We don't need them.
I don't think people going on vacation to the country are going to bring firearms anyway.
Again, those people represent a minority of the population.
Doesn't really matter. It's still a portion. Anyway, a minority could be only 149 million out of 300 million people.
You need to read the context of these quotes. I'm not constantly addressing you, Scotty. These remarks were aimed at Androgeos Exeunt and his idea that America was a big wilderness where everybody needed guns to stay alive.
-
I was unable to find any statistics on firearms preventing crime.
-
Many women DO like to get men into trouble in countries like usa and ones who have many feminists because in those countries, they are not traditional much and they want to have more rights than men and want power and in many ways, they already do when it comes to the law favoring them.
You should really move to a fine, traditional country like Iran. None of that wishy-washy, liberal, disgusting equal rights stuff. Please cite one law that favors women for anything, without exception.
I will say it all I want and it feels good to say it and helps release anger because I know how people are. I would be scared to have a woman president for that reason.
Maybe. But you should realize that this isn't the right place for you to let off steam. Go hone your exceptional physique some more, hopefully, that'll lead you to the ideal of "mens sana in corpore sano".
Flame me all you want.
No. As hard as it may be to believe for you, but most people here just wish to have a flame-free conversation about things.
I'm not scared. I'll just say it again and again. I don't have to back it up and I'm sure it isn't a small minority.
Actually, yes, you do. You know why? Because when you go on and on about things you have no knowledge off, like, for example, women being raped, noone is going to take you serious when it comes to things where you may have some expertise.
You shouldn't be so trusting thinking it is a small minority. I may not like to fight, but if someone tries a move on me like hitting me, I would do something and I might not show mercy. Like I said, if you want so-called evidence, then look for it yourself for once.
I did. I looked for evidence supporting your position. I didn't find much. What I did find, however, were sites (http://www.calcasa.org/34.0.html) like (http://www.wavaw.ca/index.cfm?page_id=21) this (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html), which you undoubtedly will decry as biased, but which nonetheless come off as more reasonable than your ranting.
You have previously stated that you consider yourself to be a misanthrope. Congratulations, you may now add "misogynist" to the list of your character attributes.
EDIT: Ooops, did I flame you, despite my saying that I won't? My bad. But your writing style, not to mention the things that you do write, constitute my own, personal berserk button.
-
Don't want to be a huge jerk, but if I were in the same room as you, High Max, I'd hit you for saying that.
Thank goodness there are people like The E around. Bastions of sense.
Many women DO like to get men into trouble in countries like usa and ones who have many feminists because in those countries, they are not traditional much and they want to have more rights than men and want power and in many ways, they already do when it comes to the law favoring them. I will say it all I want and it feels good to say it and helps release anger because I know how people are. I would be scared to have a woman president for that reason. Flame me all you want. I'm not scared. I'll just say it again and again. I don't have to back it up and I'm sure it isn't a small minority. You shouldn't be so trusting thinking it is a small minority. I may not like to fight, but if someone tries a move on me like hitting me, I would do something and I might not show mercy. Like I said, if you want so-called evidence, then look for it yourself for once. I'm not much for small talk. You should all know that by now. I will flat out tell you how I feel.
Reported to mods as hate speech under the ol' "substitute 'black person' for 'woman' and see if it's still tolerable" rule. It isn't.
-
Creepy.
-
*Raises hand feebly*
Umm, I think I called myself a misanthrope, not him, nor did he say it.
Still, Max, get over it. Find legit statistics and quit coming in with ranty bull****, it takes all the fun out of arguing.
Back to guns! :pimp:
-
Back to guns! :pimp:
Indeed. So I watched some of the 20/20 videos, and while the caliber (ba-dum!) of journalism on display was barely better than Fox News, I though the study they did with the students (in spite of the tiny sample size) and the police instructor's insights were very interesting in regards to the concealed weapons for self-defense argument. I'd be curious to learn what this thread's moderates and radicals on both sides would think of a gun control scheme like this:
1. All firearms and ammo must be registered to their owners and tagged in the manners described above for traceability, etc.
2. If you want to carry a concealed weapon for your job or whatever, you need to participate in (and pay for) monthly training with local law enforcement agencies similar to what cops do, during which you are also evaluated for your psychological well being. If the Police psychologist determines that you think you are the Antichrist and need to save everyone from yourself by sending them all to heaven, officer Bob takes your gun away and you get referred to a nice civilian shrink.
3. Sport shooters, outdoor enthusiasts, etc. can apply for a less demanding license which is limited to bolt action rifles, breech loading shotguns, and other stuff I can't think of right now that isn't as well suited to Rambo style rampages.
Decent damage control? Not strong enough? Cold dead fingers? You decide. Based on the one-sided evidence we provide. And then in case you didn't get it, we flat out tell you what to think--
On the next, Crappy News Editorial Show (not affiliated with the preceding crappy TV movie about the same subject).
Edit: spelled breech like beach.
Edit 2: And by breech loading I meant break action. D'oh.
-
Captain Oblivious
Aaaaand ... you were going somewhere with this? :rolleyes:
-
So I watched some of the 20/20 videos, and while the caliber (ba-dum!) of journalism on display was barely better than Fox News
I tend to agree, though the classroom assault scenarios were interesting, so were the results of the gun show segment.
-
Liberal Gun owners:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/beliefs.html
-
:jaw: Dear God, they do exist!
-
:jaw: Dear God, they do exist!
As I said in my post, my family owns firearms.
I'm not exactly liberal, nor is the family, but close enough.
-
Captain Oblivious
Aaaaand ... you were going somewhere with this? :rolleyes:
No, not really. Arguing in gen disc is pointless. I've never gotten one person to change their views on anything, and nor have I seen this happen. So yeah.
-
Not only do they exist, but one of them is right here. I was certain that I had posted that at least once, if not several times in the last 20 pages...
-
Yeah but you can't get a person to change his mind about people never changing their minds. :p
-
Another tack on liberals with guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgwWeM_wBBY&feature=related
-
What's that got to do with guns? I only listed to about the first 7 minute but as far as I heard it was just another example of how people just short of criminally insane can own guns.
-
Sorry, fragmented thought.
Getting a little senile in my old age.
-
On the other hand I find it hilarious that people who speak like that can then call themselves Christians. :D
-
SO I was either in a hurry, or responding to a thread on another forum, anywho, I MEANT to say (sarcastically, sorta) something like "Reasons for liberals to have guns" but obviously, I am Captain Senile and only managed to get some of the right words out.
On topic, have you looked at the WVA HHS link I posted on statistics, or some of the stuff from the "Liberal Gun Club" manifesto?
-
SO I was either in a hurry, or responding to a thread on another forum, anywho, I MEANT to say (sarcastically, sorta) something like "Reasons for liberals to have guns" but obviously, I am Captain Senile and only managed to get some of the right words out.
Liberals need to own guns just because they have a political difference to people with a more conservative outlook on life?
I'm so glad I don't live in that world.
-
The point was (sarcastically) that conservatives want to kill us ;)
Like I said, brain misfire, and mostly sarcasm ;)
On topic, have you looked at the WVA HHS link I posted on statistics, or some of the stuff from the "Liberal Gun Club" manifesto?
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html
Look up some of the things there....
-
And people here are arguing against just guns? :wtf:
-
:snipe:
-
And people here are arguing against just guns? :wtf:
Nope. But I'm sure the NRA would come out and defend your right to a flamethrower if people tried to ban them.
-
I'd like to own a minigun. Would be epic :D
What Should I Do With Them?
If you're asking us this question, then you are obviously retardedly wealthy. We recommend purchasing a fleet of golden limousines, coating them in tannerite and then shooting them into flames with golden bullets. Firing this weapon for any length of time is an act of such ridiculous decadence that no other behavior you engage in will seem even the least bit indulgent.
-
And people here are arguing against just guns? :wtf:
Nope. But I'm sure the NRA would come out and defend your right to a flamethrower if people tried to ban them.
Why not? After all they did support the sale of "cop killer" amor piercing bullets to the public a while back.
-
And people here are arguing against just guns? :wtf:
Nope. But I'm sure the NRA would come out and defend your right to a flamethrower if people tried to ban them.
:rolleyes:
-
I'd like to get back to the subject (I know, my senile moment contributed to the off topicness).
-
Why not? After all they did support the sale of "cop killer" amor piercing bullets to the public a while back.
well with a name like cop killer they must be bad.
-
Why not? After all they did support the sale of "cop killer" amor piercing bullets to the public a while back.
well with a name like cop killer they must be bad.
So tell me about those armored-plated deer you're out hunting.
Oh wait, so there really is no need for teflon-coated bullets?
-
Oh wait, so there really is no need for teflon-coated bullets?
As a red blooded American man, I reserve the right to fry up bacon on my non-stick ammo belts. You can pry them out of my cold dead fingers.
-
Oh wait, so there really is no need for teflon-coated bullets?
I really hate this misconception. The bullets aren't Teflon-coated. The Teflon burns off in firing, because the bullets are hardened materials that might otherwise damage the rifling and the bore. The Teflon has nothing to do with their penetrative capablities.
-
So they are Teflon-coated then.
It's just that they aren't any more when they hit you.
-
So they are Teflon-coated then.
Gun nomenclature: if it doesn't come out of the front end, it's not a part of the bullet, it's a part of the cartridge. :P
-
Another interesting take:
http://www.americangunculturereport.com/
-
Some statistics on homicide rates in the US per state and percentages caused by guns, knifes, and other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)
-
Some statistics on homicide rates in the US per state and percentages caused by guns, knifes, and other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state)
the top of that list reads like someone took a murder rate from a token western european country and then ADDED gun deaths loololol
-
Is there a way to know if a source is really accurate?
Of course not. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty.
Also, I didn't know that Texas has more people than New York.
Texas is pretty dang big. Between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin you've already got several million people, and then there are tons of medium-sized cities and even more small towns on top of that. Except in west Texas. There's nothing there.
-
Apparently the WV DH site has removed the detailed study.
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/hsc/briefs/eleven/default.htm
-
Texas is pretty dang big. Between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin you've already got several million people, and then there are tons of medium-sized cities and even more small towns on top of that. Except in west Texas. There's nothing there.
True, but the rate is per 100,000 people. Plus there were several much smaller states that had higher rates.
I thought it was funny that of the worst 15 states, 2/3 consistently vote republican.
-
Texas is pretty dang big. Between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin you've already got several million people, and then there are tons of medium-sized cities and even more small towns on top of that. Except in west Texas. There's nothing there.
True, but the rate is per 100,000 people. Plus there were several much smaller states that had higher rates.
I thought it was funny that of the worst 15 states, 2/3 consistently vote republican.
The common factor? Drunk rednecks...
-
Does that help, or hurt the argument?
-
If you had ever been around a redneck you'd understand....
-
I have, its one of the reasons i think there should be regulated gun control.
-
Ah, but how do you plan to regulate it to keep guns out of the hands of "crazy rednecks" without breaking the 2nd amendment?
-
Ah, but how do you plan to regulate it to keep guns out of the hands of "crazy rednecks" without breaking the 2nd amendment?
The same way I have advocated before, but in short: and appropriate licensing program that includes training and education, wait periods, background checks, interviews, and penalties for misconduct, probably at the federal level, or at least common enough across the states to make it consistent (similar to drivers licenses in spirit). I actually like the format of the MA licensing, the in practice bit could be greatly improved, but the intention appeals to my sense of right/wrong and fairness.
-
Any way we can get the neocon Obama bashing split from the relatively sane debate on guns we were having?
-
Answer: New thread.
I wanna talk about guns Damnit!
-
What kind?
Little ones?
(http://www.courter.org/guns/handguns/kel-tecp-3atl.jpg)
Big ones?
(http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/Brian_Marsh/Barrels.jpg)
or ones in between
(http://www.dreadgazebo.com/gunporn/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/svdb_smaller.jpg)
:D
-
I was thinking more along the lines of this baby
(http://jasonchartley.com/img/airsoft_minigun)
:P
-
Big ones?
(http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/Brian_Marsh/Barrels.jpg)
16"/50 Mark 7, can't identify the ship but it was taken in the '60s probably; thats the CVN version of Enterprise in the background, and the main optical rangefinder is not in its WW2 configuration. (Also note that in normal operations, the rangefinder was faced astern, to protect it from spray.)
-
Looks BB to me. I can add nothing of value to the above :)
(http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg)
Anyway, we were talking about 2nd amendment, which has very little to do with 16inch battleship guns ;)
-
2nd amendment rights will protect loyal americans from the tyrannous battleships
u see... this .22LR... it ha senough stopping power to put a rat on its knees... we have a militia now
a militia of fat
spill the blood of the tyrants and despots now *grabs another big mac*
-
I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.
Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.
-
I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.
Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.
Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that. It's true they were not accurate; they didn't have to be. They fired a lot of shells. You can say the same of any sort of gun. The amount of ordinance required to kill a single enemy soldier is usually in the range of tons each.
-
A dragunov? Really... That's small stuff
:rolleyes:
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm
-
I went to a panel (paper presentation by a researcher) about how useless battleships were.
Apparently they never did very well at what they were supposed to do, even in the pre-aircraft-carrier era -- something to do with the crappy accuracy of their guns. And apparently the number one killer of battleships was minefields.
Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that. It's true they were not accurate; they didn't have to be. They fired a lot of shells. You can say the same of any sort of gun. The amount of ordinance required to kill a single enemy soldier is usually in the range of tons each.
The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes. Also told a hilarious anecdote about British battleships attempting to push through the Straits of Gallipoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gallipoli) and failing miserably at what they were built for, namely, the bombardment of shore forts. (He sounded a bit outraged: 'they couldn't get past a few shore forts and a handful of sailboats dropping mines!')
Also went on a bit about the farcical nature of battleship-on-battleship combat.
I was a pretty big fan of battleships on the basis of their cool factor, but after reading about the history of naval bombardment, I gotta say they pretty much sucked.
And if you can't remember a single battleship lost to mines, that's rather silly.
-
the french battleship, Jean Bart, put up one hell of a fight against the americans during the invasion of North Africa ca. 1942.
But that is also not the point of this thread ;)
-
The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes. Also told a hilarious anecdote about British battleships attempting to push through the Straits of Gallipoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_gallipoli) and failing miserably at what they were built for, namely, the bombardment of shore forts.
I was a pretty big fan of battleships on the basis of their cool factor, but after reading about the history of naval bombardment, I gotta say they pretty much sucked.
And if you can't remember a single battleship lost to mines, that's rather silly.
Nature of the beast, at the time. By Surigao Straight they were able to register first-salvo hits at 30,000 yards, but that was too late; the next day would see the aircraft carrier once and for all assert its dominance. Nothing was accurate then, so it is pointless to single out the battleship.
Seriously though. At least as far back as the Spanish-American War, I can't think of a single battleship loss to mines. (Unless you count the Maine, and that's been more recently forsenicly traced to coaling issues.) In WW2, Barham was torpedoed, Bismarck is gunfire and torpedos with an air attack assist, Taranto was air attack, Battleship Row was air attack, Jean Bart was gunfire and air attack, Hiei was a combination of (admittedly non-battleship) gunfire and air attack, Kirishima was gunfire, Scharnhorst was gunfire and possibly one torpedo, Sibuyan Sea is air attack for Musashi, Surigao Strait was torpedos for Fuso and gunfire and torpedos for Yamashiro, Okinawa was air attack for Yamato, and the final destruction of the IJN was air attack for their remaining battleships.
The only loss that could even be misconstrued as mines was Mutsu, which blew up at anchor in Hiroshima Bay in 1943, probably due to a mishandled 16" shell.
And sorry Inquistor. :P Jean Bart never hit a US ship. Massachuetts put her out of action with a shell that jammed her operable turret in train; that was fixed in time for her to be bottomed in port by Ranger's divebombers.
-
Um, read the Wikipedia article I linked.
It's not exactly battleships going up in flames with magazines breached, but it is ships put out of action.
And, again, I saw a well-sourced presentation with a tabulation of all battleship casualties (including dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, etcetera) and mines came out ahead.
-
So did the Bismark in the North Atlantic. However, they both lost, and for much less than it cost to construct the massive behemoths in the first place.
Another example: Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed. Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers. Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.
The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective. Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work. Slow, expensive, long construction, etc. Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of DoomTM.
-
And, again, I saw a well-sourced presentation with a tabulation of all battleship casualties (including dreadnoughts, pre-dreadnoughts, etcetera) and mines came out ahead.
Well, produce it. :p Ships out of action that sailed home don't scan as losses, which is how this was originally cast. Besides, we can trace the concept of battleships back to the concept of the Line of Battle, which goes back to the days of sail, and if you want to do that, then I'm probably going to win this argument. (The leading cause of death for a 74 was navigational error.)
So did the Bismark in the North Atlantic. However, they both lost, and for much less than it cost to construct the massive behemoths in the first place.
Another example: Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed. Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers. Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.
The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective. Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work. Slow, expensive, long construction, etc. Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of DoomTM.
Not quite. It still took King George V, Rodney, a couple heavy cruisers, and some destroyers to sink Bismark, and this is despite the fact Bismark had its rudder jammed. (In fact, it is a point of some contention whether they actually sunk Bismark or whether Bismark's crew scuttled.) Bismark had earlier sunk Hood and seen off Prince of Wales.
Similarly, Taffy 3 did not win that battle entirely on their own merits. (If you're interested in that action, I recommend reading Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.) The aircraft mostly came from Taffy 2; the escort carriers' survival can mostly be traced to Admiral Kurita's poor tactical decisions and the sheer insane bravery of the escorting destroyers and destroyer escorts. And it cost them.
-
I wish I could produce it. As it stands I'm going to have to rely on Google-fu. But it was a good presentation by a well-informed grognard, clearly a battleship aficionado.
As usual, I'm not really sure if we're disagreeing on many things...except as to whether mines sank a lot of battleships/dreadnoughts/pre-dreads.
I will do the Googling later because something awesome and totally classified is happening on the Freespace front.
-
I can see I am going to have to ask for another split :)
The battle between the drydocked Jean Bart, the USS Massachussetts and her cruiser escort and the planes from the USS Ranger was a pretty lengthy affair, spanning two days, effectively. The first day, she duelled with teh Mass and her cruisers. The next day, she engaged the Augusta and her escort.
She tied up 4-6 US capital ships and the resources of a carrier, plus their destroyer screens. She didn't hit anything, but she did engage ships in such a way that effectively took them out of the fight for substantial periods of time each day. Her crew worked overnight to put her back into the action the next day. Every shell at her was a shell not used to bombard the shore positions. Though arguably, she was little more than a big shore battery.
I can see that I am going to have to edit the wiki article, there are some things missing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Jean_Bart_(1940)
For a description of that battle, you can check out "Operations in North African Waters" by Samuel Morrison (who was a junior officer on the USS Brooklyn at the time), or my own grandfathers diary refers to the events (he was on the radio of the Brooklyn at the time):
http://www.deckersds.com/AOL/egard38083/MAB/freweafr.html
(sorry, the original site is down, so you get my 15 year old AOL web backup)
I believe there is a description of hte events by Adm Dauphan (sp?) in his "History of the French Navy in WW2" as well, but its been a while since I looked in that volume.
Either way, she put up a heckuva fight.
Maybe we can split the battleship posts :) I am very keen on discussing real naval warfare :)
-edit-
egads the typos...
-
The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes.
How do you know he had great sources? As an avid fan of naval warfare with over 1000 books (I kid you not. Over 2400 book total! My house is a friggin library) at home abut ships, sailing and the navy in general I can tell you that's utter bollocks.
I've got a dozen books on the war in the pacific and mediterian and I can't recall a single battleship lost to a mine.
Another example: Taffy 3 vs. the Yamato battlegroup, headed by the largest battleship ever (then) constructed. Seven destroyers and destroyer escorts total, forced to defend 6 escort carriers vs. 4 battleships, 6 cruisers of various sizes, and 10-12 destroyers. Taffy 3 ended up sinking 3 cruisers and damaging others, and the battleships were just about useless, while losing only destroyers and one escort carrier.
Yamato was formidable on paper only. Not to mention that Japanese made one really big error of building their ships with really sub-par anti-air armament. The Irony, given that they started the whole carrier attack approach.
The point is that battleships are too slow, unwieldy, large, expensive, and easily outmaneuvered to be truly effective. Look to the Colossus for a good example of why it doesn't work. Slow, expensive, long construction, etc. Not to mention the dangers of being knocked out of the park by the Giant Baseball Bat of DoomTM.
Now that's a really wrong example.
The Collie has a speed of 30m/s, which makes it faster than most cruisers! Not to mention that with JUMP DRIVES there is no "slow and easily outmanouvered" anymore. There is no horizon for carries to hide behind. The distances between a battleship in FS2 universe and the carrier target can be closed within seconds.
-
I can see I am going to have to ask for another split :)
I'm not bothering unless someone starts talking about the 2nd amendment again. :p
-
Which is very annoying :)
-
Considering I can't think of a single battleship that was lost to mines, I doubt that.
It really depends on which war you're talking about.
http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/sunk.html.
-
The panel was over a year ago, but this guy was clearly an expert and had great sources. Had a wonderful matrix of battleship losses throughout history and the causes.
How do you know he had great sources? As an avid fan of naval warfare with over 1000 books (I kid you not. Over 2400 book total! My house is a friggin library) at home abut ships, sailing and the navy in general I can tell you that's utter bollocks.
I've got a dozen books on the war in the pacific and mediterian and I can't recall a single battleship lost to a mine.
You're forgetting about World War I. :rolleyes: Dreadnoughts, battleships -- the name changed because of a treaty.
Oh, yeah, he also pointed a lot of stuff about how they kept blowing up accidentally. That was a riot.
-
*Bump*
I can't let a thread I posted this much on just die, can I?
-
Substantive responses are much more likely to have an effect.
-
Yeah I think this one is outta gas...
-
Which is a shame. It was not entirely full of pointless rhetoric.
-
Only mostly.
-
Only mostly.
shut up
-
lawl :D
-
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/cartwright_16963___article.html/elizabeth_deputies.html
another nutjob snaps.