Page 14 of 78 FirstFirst ... 41011121314151617182464 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 1930

Thread: United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

  1. #326
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akiyama View Post
    Designed for one purpose? They are not. Military, law enforcement, home defense, competition, hunting, and recreation. Bushmaster made these six categories as a sort of ad. Their minds aren't focused on only the killing purpose, and neither is my mind. So no, I don't see these rifles as just being for killing, nor do I think the makers had that in mind all the time. "Basic purpose," "no practical purpose," are troubling phrases to use. Who defines what this purpose is? It's subjective because a person judges what the purpose is of a tool or thing. You may think it's a killing machine, but those on the rifle range may say it's for collection (show offs).

    Since the judged purpose is subjective, I cannot state the extent of the purposes the rifle may have. Fun, sure, people tell me that (though I prefer target practice). No, statements said by riflemen that shooting is fun doesn't mean they're careless or crazy killers. The penalty for even accidently shooting someone (plus the grief) is a real incentive to prevent that.

    The statement not caring about anyone's wants is disturbing though. I am limited in what I may do because of limited means (lack of money), or because the means or ends steal, murder, lie, or violate another's physical property. A ban on assault rifles does however threaten to steal or violate another's property if they try selling such a rifle, and may also threaten assault rifle owners' lives if confiscation (stealing) is enforced. Morally, this is awkward, the government being able to steal and kill if needed to enforce such a law, but I can't do such a thing (because I would an aggressor, not defending like with self defense against theft).
    You can make categories of killing (which encompasses all but "competition" and "recreation" to some extent) but they're still designed to harm and kill. That's what guns are made for. And honestly, why is it surprising that a gun manufacturer tries to make their product sound cooler by giving them all different categories? It's a sales tactic and nothing more. You can give something a new purpose to you personally (That's kind of the whole idea behind the "found art" idea, for example) but it doesn't change the fact that object was designed for something specific. Someone might think their gun collection is cool but that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous to have those weapons.

    And I think saying that having tighter gun control (which is what I stated in my post) "takes the fun out of life" does show that many people in this country don't realize the gravity of owning a gun. It is not a toy designed for fun. It is dangerous, especially if not used properly. I never said anything about the statements of riflemen. I was responding to your post, your statement alone.

    Why is not caring about others' desires to be greedy (possibly at the expense of another's life) disturbing? I see people die all the time. I see the devastation it brings to their families firsthand. I'm not desensitized to it and I probably never will be. The idea of owning something that was designed to kill so efficiently disturbs me. I've shot a gun before and it was emotionally disturbing to me. I'm not asking for a ban on anything (I said I wouldn't mind a ban on certain guns, not that I'm asking for a ban). If you think I am, you misread my post. I'm asking for stricter gun laws and gun control. And as far as theft goes: Is the $60 in your wallet worth another human's life? Is your flat-screen TV worth another's life? Rhetorical questions but important things to consider. What's disturbing to me is reading in the NRA's official magazine about some guy who is praised as a hero for shooting and killing an unarmed teenager for breaking and entering his home. There's protecting what's yours and there's taking things too far, in my opinion.
    Last edited by Pesky Persian; 24th December 2012 at 10:26 PM.

  2. #327
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Pacific Timezone
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Why yes owning a gun can be fun. It does however carry its responsibilities as would a fast car require good driving. Gun ownership carries big punishments for misuse though. Ranges with the least safety gear are in the middle of nowhere many miles from houses because liability for bullets hitting houses and people is just about impossible (thus no lawsuits). The ranges close to houses are indoors or designed with rules, berms, and overhead metal blockers to avoid having this happen. Not the mention the security cameras put up at my local pistol range to catch who was shooting the structure's pillars. Keep the laws against manslaughter up as well, that's a great incentive as well. For misuse against one's self, I've even seen a guy in school with a shot foot he did to himself. That's painful and just about everyone in my gym class heard about it.

    Still, to reply to your questions. I do refuse to be robbed of the TV or the $60. Will he attempt to kill me? Maybe, especially if he is already armed. I don't have to shoot back right away, I could run, disarm him, throw heavy things at him, or tell him to run because I threaten him with lethal self-defense. Others may not view getting their lives in the way of their property wise all the time, but it is their own value scale to defend property and self. I would be mad at a shopkeeper for shooting a child stealing a toy out of a store (assuming no one in the store was threatened by this boy) because no one's body was even threatened with even a stab. I mean, taking out the boy's life may be a huge unseen cost that is unjustified since he threatened no one.

    Now getting in the way of a theft may result in a murder attempt, but being serious for self-defense may also result in no crime. That's a gamble for the gunowner or knifeowner or the strong armed. Thus, the question may be "is $60 worth your life and body to defend?" And honestly, self-defense trainers suggest you do give the $60 because of this danger. For an LCD TV in the house? Maybe he pulls a gun or knife when told to drop the TV, or maybe he runs. End results may mean an escaped thief, the homeowner killed, or the thief who attempted to hurt the homeowner is killed, or the TV is out of the house.

    So stricter gun laws and control then? Telling people what rifle they can no longer sell is backed up by government force. Two consenting parties, both legal to buy and sell a gun in the present system, can no longer do the same. Maybe you meant the mentally ill shouldn't get them, but these people may not have killed or aren't aggressive. ADHD, aspergers, autism, depression come to mind as common illnesses, yet are they actually violent or have been violent?

    Oh, but now I reached a topic I am on the fence about, still thinking of: Should felons and all of the mentally ill be able to legally buy and sell firearms? I'll think about it. Maybe there should be liability on gun shops for selling weapons to known bad guys and aggressive mentally ill instead. Which brings forward vouchers (people who can say "I trust this felon enough that I will pay massive damages if he screws up") and pretty much the same ban against felons. Ah who knows what better system there is for this gun buying and selling, maybe they really should just be allowed to sell as they wish because it is only the felon who's the bad guy for aggressive violence.

    And finally with your judgement for the rifle's design or purpose or danger. It's still a subjective thing. Humans judge what is to fulfilled by making a tool (its designed to do...), and another human may judge that tool's purpose according to his wants. How dangerous something is depends on a person's judgement and evaluation of risk-vs-reward and how he feels about the risk (injury) or reward (some purpose). I see people not wear seatbelts, and I know they might go through the windshield in a crash, but they may see the risk as being so small that it's worth the comfort of being without the belt. Dangerous to have these weapons? It depends because the gun is inactive, its safety depends on its use and how the user follows safe gun handling. Telling others about a gun collection may also be dangerous by increasing the risk for home invasion (or it may decrease the risk! Unknown effect).

    But really, if you meant that the rifle is dangerous against victims (or an aggressor) then of course it is. Same with two or more thugs ambushing a person with or without any weapons. Same with chemistry making a truck bomb for killing (somehow, the Mid-East still has these occur despite what the army tries). The assault rifle may be viewed as an improvement over a normal hunting rifle for its looks, target shooting, or hunting, and that is like how a faster car may be viewed as an improvement for its looks, speed, and bragging. Both can be viewed as an improved way to carry out a purpose a human desires. Both can also be seen as more dangerous, though I do not support banning either. The violence of taking away another's property (rifles) for the purpose of a gun ban or law or control instead of a real violent crime is offensive to me.

    That's about enough from me though, I think my practice at debating is enough. I have now thought up quite the question over if felon should have a gun bought (do we really know his future?), and it interests me enough to investigate it.

    Edit: Akiyama holds it as a truth that design and purpose is in fact subjective. I am bored of restating that. Also, one may state seatbelt laws are around to prevent this "dangerous" activity of not wearing one while driving. Frankly, I am only interested in persuading people to use a seatbelt for their own safety, but you might get yelled at for pointing a rifle at others on a rifle range since that concerns others' safety (and you could be reported for it).
    Last edited by Akiyama; 25th December 2012 at 1:31 AM.
    As I adventured into math and ideas, that old desire for fan fiction came back.

    This review took at least an hour to write, by the way.

  3. #328
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,922

    Default

    To a point it's not subjective at all. Just because you can use something in a different way, doesn't mean we refer to those uses as equal. Guns are specifically manufactured to blow holes in things. You can display them, but this is obviously a secondary thing to do with them. Guns aren't made to be displayed, they are displayed because people are impressed with their potential to do damage, the primary purpose for them. People created guns to be weapons - for war, defense, hunting, whatever.

    There are people that make homes out of airplanes and school buses. Yet nobody would say that airplanes and school buses are made to transport people or provide homes for people. The overwhelmingly common purpose for airplanes and school buses is to transport people. It's only in the absense of fufilling that use that people decide to use them for makeshift homes.

    You can buy a whole bunch of video game cartridges and display them, but there would be no reason to display them if you didn't value them for what they are primarily used for, playing the video game on them. It's the same thing with guns. People don't display guns just for the sake of displaying guns - they display guns because they value them for their capability to shoot. So collecting guns isn't really a separate, distinct use of them - it's obviously connected to using them to shoot things.

    Target practice is not really a distinct use from shooting a living thing either. The guns were still not manufactured to do target practice in particular; target practice emerged as a way to train people how to use guns in order to shoot a living target in either hunting or war. In target practice, paintball and water guns fufill the same purpose of projecting something over a distance and seeing them collide. There's no motivation to use lethal force on an inanimate target unless you're honing your skills to potentially use the gun to inflict that lethal force on something living. It's not that people don't need to or have no purpose in using lethal force; just that doing so specificaly points to the fact that the point is not the target practice itself, but the use of the lethal force.

    Even if you believe that using guns for target practice meaningfully changes what guns are meant to be used for, that target practice is not related to hunting an animal or shooting a person, the gun remains just as dangerous regardless of what you decide to do with it. Even if you just display inactive guns, they can be loaded again and adopt the ideal realization of what the manuafacters made them for. Pretty sure this is all Pesky Persian is trying to say with that point.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 25th December 2012 at 1:34 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  4. #329
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    You can make categories of killing (which encompasses all but "competition" and "recreation" to some extent) but they're still designed to harm and kill. That's what guns are made for. And honestly, why is it surprising that a gun manufacturer tries to make their product sound cooler by giving them all different categories? It's a sales tactic and nothing more. You can give something a new purpose to you personally (That's kind of the whole idea behind the "found art" idea, for example) but it doesn't change the fact that object was designed for something specific. Someone might think their gun collection is cool but that doesn't change the fact that it's dangerous to have those weapons.

    And I think saying that having tighter gun control (which is what I stated in my post) "takes the fun out of life" does show that many people in this country don't realize the gravity of owning a gun. It is not a toy designed for fun. It is dangerous, especially if not used properly. I never said anything about the statements of riflemen. I was responding to your post, your statement alone.

    Why is not caring about others' desires to be greedy (possibly at the expense of another's life) disturbing? I see people die all the time. I see the devastation it brings to their families firsthand. I'm not desensitized to it and I probably never will be. The idea of owning something that was designed to kill so efficiently disturbs me. I've shot a gun before and it was emotionally disturbing to me. I'm not asking for a ban on anything (I said I wouldn't mind a ban on certain guns, not that I'm asking for a ban). If you think I am, you misread my post. I'm asking for stricter gun laws and gun control. And as far as theft goes: Is the $60 in your wallet worth another human's life? Is your flat-screen TV worth another's life? Rhetorical questions but important things to consider. What's disturbing to me is reading in the NRA's official magazine about some guy who is praised as a hero for shooting and killing an unarmed teenager for breaking and entering his home. There's protecting what's yours and there's taking things too far, in my opinion.
    Where would you draw the line though? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic? Where ould it end? And would that make all the violence and killing go away?
    A Winner Is You!!!

    If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you'll never get it done.
    - Bruce Lee

    The worst thing you can do in any business is blame the customer.
    - Willie 'Jack' Degel

  5. #330
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Thought I would post a few things since there has been some news in the Gun Debate since the last post in this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by WSBTV
    The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

    But the man eventually found the family.

    “The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

    The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.
    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/

    Without a gun in the house, things could have gone ALOT worse.

    Meanwhile a local newspaper decided to use Google Earth and the Freedom of Information Act to engage in pure stupidity and post the names of all gun permit holders. The reaction? Quite predictable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox News
    Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

    Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News’ decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

    “They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That’s not acceptable to me,” Falco said, according to Newsday.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04...data-officers/

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox News
    That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

    “What they did was insanity,” added Shaw, author of “License to Steal,” a book about his criminal career.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04...-easier-safer/

    In the end they have made crimes much easier, criminals now know the safer places to burglarize.

  6. #331
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
    Where would you draw the line though? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic? Where ould it end? And would that make all the violence and killing go away?
    I'm too tired and too busy to keep up with this thread, but I just have to point out two things:
    1. I've already stated that I'm not asking for a ban, simply stricter gun laws. Laws on all guns. I don't know why I need to place a line anywhere because I'm not saying anything about a ban.
    2. I never said it would make the violence and killing go away. Not completely. However, even in Cipher's OP we can see that other countries with stricter gun laws have less lethal crime. I don't honestly think it's simply a coincidence that we have some of the loosest gun control laws and more massacres than the rest of the world combined.

  7. #332
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    2. I never said it would make the violence and killing go away. Not completely. However, even in Cipher's OP we can see that other countries with stricter gun laws have less lethal crime. I don't honestly think it's simply a coincidence that we have some of the loosest gun control laws and more massacres than the rest of the world combined.
    As I pointed out before, even in the UK with their strict gun laws they have merely switched over to stabbings as the new form of killing. And unlike us they do not have to deal with a flood of weapons across their border. Infact it got so bad, there was talk in 2005 of a ban on kitchen knives!

  8. #333
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    As I pointed out before, even in the UK with their strict gun laws they have merely switched over to stabbings as the new form of killing. And unlike us they do not have to deal with a flood of weapons across their border. Infact it got so bad, there was talk in 2005 of a ban on kitchen knives!
    I don't honestly think most average, everyday people (which is what most of these people who have done these mass killings as of late have been) are going to be buying a bunch of guns off the black market if they were illegal. As it is now, they're a convenient, lethal weapon. I think it would be a bit not worth the effort for people doing petty crimes and/or having a psychotic break. The people I can see buying things from a black market would be more like gang members or drug cartels, which are generally more focused on shooting each other than they are shooting up schools. Also, as Cipher has already pointed out, knives aren't as lethal for mass-killings as guns are. They're much too slow and require the victim to be in close range. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife than a gun.

    Edit: Also, as I've said before (and maybe I'm not being totally clear on this) I am not talking about banning guns outright. I don't think people are going to be going the black market route just because it's more difficult to get a gun.

  9. #334
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I don't honestly think most average, everyday people (which is what most of these people who have done these mass killings as of late have been) are going to be buying a bunch of guns off the black market if they were illegal. As it is now, they're a convenient, lethal weapon. I think it would be a bit not worth the effort for people doing petty crimes and/or having a psychotic break. The people I can see buying things from a black market would be more like gang members or drug cartels, which are generally more focused on shooting each other than they are shooting up schools.
    One could say it is fairly easy now for most average, everyday people, to buy drugs off the black market, if not the large drug base would not exist, what is the difference from transporting drugs to transporting illegal firearms Hell if we were to merely ban guns, wouldn't these mass murderers move on to something else? Possibly bomb making? Something you can devise from chemicals found at nearly any store.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Also, as Cipher has already pointed out, knives aren't as lethal for mass-killings as guns are. They're much too slow and require the victim to be in close range. It's much easier to defend yourself against a knife than a gun.
    It is much easier to defend, which is also a problem. Gun's usually serve to calm down a situation, as people know they cannot defend against them, and thus people back off when a gun is pulled. Knives on the other hand, people know they have a chance against it, and are more willing to act, thus escalating the situation and increasing the chances of a fatal stabbing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian
    Edit: Also, as I've said before (and maybe I'm not being totally clear on this) I am not talking about banning guns outright. I don't think people are going to be going the black market route just because it's more difficult to get a gun.
    Nor am I saying you are, but I do want to point out that the man in the Sandy Hook shooting tried to get a gun and failed, he then stole them from his mother and killed her. If he was willing to engage in illegal means to get a weapon after trying to get one legally, how far do you honestly think he was from seeking out a Black Market route?
    Last edited by BigLutz; 7th January 2013 at 10:57 PM.

  10. #335
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    One could say it is fairly easy now for most average, everyday people, to buy drugs off the black market, if not the large drug base would not exist, what is the difference from transporting drugs to transporting illegal firearms Hell if we were to merely ban guns, wouldn't these mass murderers move on to something else? Possibly bomb making? Something you can devise from chemicals found at nearly any store.
    Guns are not drugs. Honestly, have you learned nothing from previous discussions or is your tactic to never have any other argument?

    Your reading comprehension skills must be very poor. I've said it at least twice on this page: I am not talking about banning guns. Jesus tapdancing Christ, is every pro-gun person in this thread illiterate or can you all just not understand that stricter laws do not equal a ban?

    It is much easier to defend, which is also a problem. Gun's usually serve to calm down a situation, as people know they cannot defend against them, and thus people back off when a gun is pulled. Knives on the other hand, people know they have a chance against it, and are more willing to act, thus escalating the situation and increasing the chances of a fatal stabbing.
    I don't actually see guns ever calming a situation down unless they're in the hands of a law enforcement official.
    Your fatal stabbing scenario is confusing. I can't tell if you're talking about the attacker or the victim holding the knife. If you're talking about the attacker, if you're going to go after someone wielding a knife instead of just running away, you're pretty stupid and that's your own fault.

    Edit:
    Nor am I saying you are, but I do want to point out that the man in the Sandy Hook shooting tried to get a gun and failed, he then stole them from his mother and killed her. If he was willing to engage in illegal means to get a weapon after trying to get one legally, how far do you honestly think he was from seeking out a Black Market route?
    Stealing from your own mother is not the same as obtaining a weapon from the black market. Also, if guns weren't so easy to get, his mother probably wouldn't be collecting them and thus he wouldn't have such easy access.
    Last edited by Pesky Persian; 7th January 2013 at 11:05 PM.

  11. #336
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Guns are not drugs. Honestly, have you learned nothing from previous discussions or is your tactic to never have any other argument?
    Of which I have brought up in previous discussions and no one has been able to dispute that the Mexican Drug Cartels are just as easily able to move guns across the border as they are drugs as long as there is a open market for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Your reading comprehension skills must be very poor. I've said it at least twice on this page: I am not talking about banning guns. Jesus tapdancing Christ, is every pro-gun person in this thread illiterate or can you all just not understand that stricter laws do not equal a ban?
    I believe I have already addressed that in a edit of my post, but it should be noted you have refered back to the OP for your argument, which carries many links to outright bans of guns in countries. If you wish to avoid confusion I would suggest you avoid doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I don't actually see guns ever calming a situation down unless they're in the hands of a law enforcement official.
    It does not matter if the person holding a gun is a law enforcement officer or not, they immediately have the power in the situation because they have a weapon that could immediately kill anyone else. As such in a heated argument it calms the situation down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Your fatal stabbing scenario is confusing. I can't tell if you're talking about the attacker or the victim holding the knife. If you're talking about the attacker, if you're going to go after someone wielding a knife instead of just running away, you're pretty stupid and that's your own fault.
    Don't see what is confusing about it, lets say there are two guys arguing in a bar, one pulls out a gun, the second immediately freezes and apologizes and tries to calm the gun wielder down. Now lets replace the gun with a knife, instead of trying to calm the knife wielder down, the knife-less man believes he can take him, because as you have admitted people know they have a chance with a knife as opposed to a gun. In the ensuing struggle one or both are fatally stabbed trying to wrestle over the knife.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian
    Stealing from your own mother is not the same as obtaining a weapon from the black market. Also, if guns weren't so easy to get, his mother probably wouldn't be collecting them and thus he wouldn't have such easy access.
    Last time I checked his mother was pretty nutty in and of herself, and was a survivalist believing the world was at the edge of economic ruin, do you honestly think some one with that kind of mindset would not skirt the law to protect her children? It is also worth noting that the state that the shooting took place has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire nation. The next thing one could do would be to ban actual guns.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 7th January 2013 at 11:14 PM.

  12. #337
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Of which I have brought up in previous discussions and no one has been able to dispute that the Mexican Drug Cartels are just as easily able to move guns across the border as they are drugs as long as there is a open market for them.
    And as has already been brought up in previous discussion, drugs are consumables. That has a huge impact in why they're in such high demand. You constantly need to buy more if you want them to last. Guns are not consumables. Also, drugs are much more portable and not as easily traceable.

    I believe I have already addressed that in a edit of my post, but it should be noted you have refered back to the OP for your argument, which carries many links to outright bans of guns in countries. If you wish to avoid confusion I would suggest you avoid doing that.
    You said you weren't saying I was banning guns... Yet in that same post you argue against a ban on guns. All of Cipher's links are simply informational. The only one that outright talks about gun bans is the one about Japan. There is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and a trend toward gun violence.


    It does not matter if the person holding a gun is a law enforcement officer or not, they immediately have the power in the situation because they have a weapon that could immediately kill anyone else. As such in a heated argument it calms the situation down.
    So you approve of threatening lethal force in a heated argument?

    Don't see what is confusing about it, lets say there are two guys arguing in a bar, one pulls out a gun, the second immediately freezes and apologizes and tries to calm the gun wielder down. Now lets replace the gun with a knife, instead of trying to calm the knife wielder down, the knife-less man believes he can take him, because as you have admitted people know they have a chance with a knife as opposed to a gun. In the ensuing struggle one or both are fatally stabbed trying to wrestle over the knife.
    Then that person is an idiot and was asking to be stabbed. Also, I think you're looking at guns through rose-tinted glasses. A situation where an aggressive person pulls a lethal weapon that can cause horrendous injuries even at a long range is not better.



    Last time I checked his mother was pretty nutty in and of herself, and was a survivalist believing the world was at the edge of economic ruin, do you honestly think some one with that kind of mindset would not skirt the law to protect her children? It is also worth noting that the state that the shooting took place has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire nation. The next thing one could do would be to ban actual guns.
    I haven't actually researched his mother, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Do we even know she bought the guns in that state? I mean, it's not exactly difficult to transport guns across state lines. There isn't any kind of border patrol like on a national level.
    Last edited by Pesky Persian; 7th January 2013 at 11:26 PM.

  13. #338
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    And as has already been brought up in previous discussion, drugs are consumables. That has a huge impact in why they're in such high demand. You constantly need to buy more if you want them to last. Guns are not consumables. Also, drugs are much more portable and not as easily traceable.
    A: You will always need to buy bullets, not to mention guns do break down or get stolen, and of course when gun crime goes up people in the surrounding neighborhoods will feel the need to protect themselves, creating a self feeding cycle.

    B: Mexican Drug Cartels have created a massive network of tunnels in which they can take truckloads of drugs across the border, they do not make a profit on transporting mere dime bags, but on massive quantities, as such the portable argument is null and void.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    You said you weren't saying I was banning guns... Yet in that same post you argue against a ban on guns. All of Cipher's links are simply informational. The only one that outright talks about gun bans is the one about Japan. There is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and a trend toward gun violence.
    Of course there is, but then again one could look at Britain and say there is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and knife violence

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    So you approve of threatening lethal force in a heated argument?
    I do not have to approve of something to know it happens

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Then that person is an idiot and was asking to be stabbed. Also, I think you're looking at guns through rose-tinted glasses. A situation where an aggressive person pulls a lethal weapon that can cause horrendous injuries even at a long range is not better.
    It may not be better, and that guy may be a idiot, but as we have both agreed upon, a person can get a knife out of a person's hands much easier than a gun, thus creating a escalation

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I haven't actually researched his mother, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. Do we even know she bought the guns in that state? I mean, it's not exactly difficult to transport guns across state lines. There isn't any kind of border patrol like on a national level.
    All the guns were legally registered, meaning even if she brought them across, the state knew about them and allowed them.

  14. #339
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    A: You will always need to buy bullets, not to mention guns do break down or get stolen, and of course when gun crime goes up people in the surrounding neighborhoods will feel the need to protect themselves, creating a self feeding cycle.

    B: Mexican Drug Cartels have created a massive network of tunnels in which they can take truckloads of drugs across the border, they do not make a profit on transporting mere dime bags, but on massive quantities, as such the portable argument is null and void.
    I'm not talking about a ban so I don't know why people would need to buy bullets from the black market. I don't really forecast people buying dimebags of shotgun shells off the streets just because it's more difficult to obtain a gun.
    Yeah, and who are they selling those mass amounts of drugs to? Not the high schoolers, I can tell you that. Most people who buy drugs off the streets aren't buying them straight from the cartel. Big-time black marketers aren't going to be wasting their time with small-time people looking for guns.


    Of course there is, but then again one could look at Britain and say there is a distinct correlation between gun availability to the general public and knife violence
    Which isn't nearly as deadly. I'd rather someone get a flesh wound than be sent off to the morgue, but that's just me.

    I do not have to approve of something to know it happens
    I'd rather people have something less lethal at their disposal when it does.

    It may not be better, and that guy may be a idiot, but as we have both agreed upon, a person can get a knife out of a person's hands much easier than a gun, thus creating a escalation
    This is way too much of made-up scenario for me to really give it much credit. You're assuming that someone brings a weapon to a bar and assuming that the other person is always going to back down if a gun is pulled and so likely to fight back if it's a knife that it makes knives worse than guns. Just because something is more easy to defend yourself against doesn't mean you're going to escalate a situation just because there's a chance you can get out of unscathed. Maybe if you're drunk and/or a complete moron. That doesn't make the scenario any more credible by any means.

    All the guns were legally registered, meaning even if she brought them across, the state knew about them and allowed them.
    Which is probably why we need better gun laws. Why someone who has batshit crazy delusions is allowed a gun is completely beyond me.

  15. #340
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I'm not talking about a ban so I don't know why people would need to buy bullets from the black market. I don't really forecast people buying dimebags of shotgun shells off the streets just because it's more difficult to obtain a gun.
    Of course there is however a watershed moment, make something TOO hard to obtain is just as good as outright banning it. Infact it is worth pointing out that gun crime is actually down right now despite the increase in guns on the street.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Yeah, and who are they selling those mass amounts of drugs to? Not the high schoolers, I can tell you that. Most people who buy drugs off the streets aren't buying them straight from the cartel. Big-time black marketers aren't going to be wasting their time with small-time people looking for guns.
    They will if there are enough of them, they will merely dispurse the large quantity to the movers, who will in turn work it across the country to the dealers in practically every city. Just the same way they do drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Which isn't nearly as deadly. I'd rather someone get a flesh wound than be sent off to the morgue, but that's just me.
    Really? Shall we ask Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman how much of a flesh wound a knife can give?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I'd rather people have something less lethal at their disposal when it does.
    So you would prefer escalation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    This is way too much of made-up scenario for me to really give it much credit. You're assuming that someone brings a weapon to a bar and assuming that the other person is always going to back down if a gun is pulled and so likely to fight back if it's a knife that it makes knives worse than guns. Just because something is more easy to defend yourself against doesn't mean you're going to escalate a situation just because there's a chance you can get out of unscathed. Maybe if you're drunk and/or a complete moron. That doesn't make the scenario any more credible by any means.
    You are right I am merely assuming, but that does not make this situation any less credible, hell even your own words on how knives can cause escalation give the situation credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Which is probably why we need better gun laws. Why someone who has batshit crazy delusions is allowed a gun is completely beyond me.
    So how do you plan to do that? Mind readers? Complete mental check overs to own a weapon? And may I ask, what is stopping the kid who committed Sandy Hook from merely creating a suicide vest instead? Or loading his car up with explosives like the Oklahoma City bomber did? I will remind you the largest school massacre in the U.S. did not happen with a gun, but with a bomb.

  16. #341
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    http://www.macon.com/2013/01/07/2308...neighbors.html

    But I thought guns are bad!!!

    What would have happened had this woman not had a gun? The man went into the attic after her.

    "What good is it for a man to gain the world, yet forfeit his soul?"

  17. #342
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWatersGreatGuardian View Post
    http://www.macon.com/2013/01/07/2308...neighbors.html

    But I thought guns are bad!!!

    What would have happened had this woman not had a gun? The man went into the attic after her.
    The amount of people guns save pales in comparison to the amount of people they kill.

  18. #343
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    None of your ****ing business
    Posts
    743

    Default

    There's a lot wrong with America, if we're going to attack gun owners, can we go after the school sytem, the judicial system, all the political dysfunction, and the ethnic equality too?

    On the other hand you should absolutely need intensive exams and psychological screening before you are allowed to purchase a firearm of any kind.
    If the dark is just a thought, then the light is in your mind
    The lies we tell ourselves ruin the world with time
    Did you feel the way I felt?
    Did you kneel the way I knelt?
    Or did you look up and stare, waiting for your acts of prayer?
    Oh, won't you listen to reason?


    10 hour ear orgasm, courtesy of Gamefreak

    You can shoot my body full of holes but ya can't kill the spirit of Rock N' Roll, baby! \m/

  19. #344
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eterna View Post
    The amount of people guns save pales in comparison to the amount of people they kill.
    Nice excuse. You dodged my question though.

    "What good is it for a man to gain the world, yet forfeit his soul?"

  20. #345
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    my secret lair
    Posts
    2,411

    Default

    generally i'm glad i live in a country where guns are hard to come by I wouldn't want the American style system for us. I do agree gun control is a good idea.In theory. Unfortunately I don't believe our system will work in the U.S. Why? most of the dodgy people have already got guns (the damage has long since been done) and they know where to hide them.Bringing in gun controls would be good if you could get them off of the majority of people but practically it's too difficult.

  21. #346
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luthor View Post
    generally i'm glad i live in a country where guns are hard to come by I wouldn't want the American style system for us. I do agree gun control is a good idea.In theory. Unfortunately I don't believe our system will work in the U.S. Why? most of the dodgy people have already got guns (the damage has long since been done) and they know where to hide them.Bringing in gun controls would be good if you could get them off of the majority of people but practically it's too difficult.
    and they would get them anyway regardless of laws. all gun control would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, and then people like that woman would be defenseless against a home invasion. If the government wants my guns, they are going to have to take them by force. Its my constitutional right to own a gun and I am not going to give it up.
    Last edited by TheWatersGreatGuardian; 8th January 2013 at 4:55 PM.

    "What good is it for a man to gain the world, yet forfeit his soul?"

  22. #347
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    my secret lair
    Posts
    2,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWatersGreatGuardian View Post
    and they would get them anyway regardless of laws. all gun control would do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, and then people like that woman would be defenseless against a home invasion. If the government wants my guns, they are going to have to take them by force. Its my constitutional right to own a gun and I am not going to give it up.
    if only the people who had wrote the constitution had the forethought to use the term to bare musketts rather than to bare arms.Because quite frankly it would at the very least slown down gun crime if you have to spend 5 minutes reloading.Plus only those whowere good shots would ever hit anything and they're fairly hard to hide in public.

  23. #348
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luthor View Post
    if only the people who had wrote the constitution had the forethought to use the term to bare musketts rather than to bare arms.Because quite frankly it would at the very least slown down gun crime if you have to spend 5 minutes reloading.Plus only those whowere good shots would ever hit anything and they're fairly hard to hide in public.
    Seeing how that Amendment of the Constitution was designed to keep the public well armed against the Government, even a "bare musketts" amendment more than likely would be seen by the court to evolve with the creation of better weapons.

  24. #349
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    my secret lair
    Posts
    2,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    Seeing how that Amendment of the Constitution was designed to keep the public well armed against the Government, even a "bare musketts" amendment more than likely would be seen by the court to evolve with the creation of better weapons.
    Depends how literally people take the constitution but sadly it probably would happen as you say.

  25. #350
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luthor View Post
    Depends how literally people take the constitution but sadly it probably would happen as you say.
    You don't have to take the Constitution literally, you merely have to look at what the framers thought when writing it. Their quotes on the use of guns as the final defense against a tyrannical Government is quite well known. And the thing is, they are right. If there is one constant in history, it is that when a tyrannical government rises, the guns are the first to go.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 8th January 2013 at 6:07 PM.

Page 14 of 78 FirstFirst ... 41011121314151617182464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •