Page 35 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 875 of 1930

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

  1. #851
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    ^ you pretty much answered my question without me asking it. Yes, Chicago has very tight gun laws and the homicides with guns proves that the gun laws wont work. Bars on windows and doors in high poverty areas don't work either. It's the same concept.. Lot's say only paranoid people have guns and if they're that paranoid then deadbolt they're door, blah, blah, blah.. My question to them them is, "How come in high crime rated cities bars on doors and windows doesn't stop them from breaking in?" Just like laws to make it harder to get a gun, it doesn't work. As I said many times, you can slap any gun ban you want and it wont stop them.

    The far, far left political wing side thinks that, if guns are banned it will stop criminals from getting them. They literally think the Black Market is fantasy and it doesn't exist, that's how stupid they're logic is.. No, just because you ban them doesn't mean it will stop them. So, just because marijuana is illegal means nobody will smoke it? Same concept. If a criminal wants a gun, the criminal will get the gun. If a dude wants to shoot up a school and be on the news because of a mass murder, he will get that gun one way or another. They have no common sense when it comes to this, and they have others drinkin that kool aid.
    Last edited by ShinyUmbreon189; 23rd April 2013 at 7:26 AM.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  2. #852
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Tork City
    Posts
    7,745

    Default

    Both sides of this argument are engaging in black-or-white thinking and missing the point that there is no silver bullet that will magically cure all the problems. Banning and taking away guns isn't going to make the issue go away any more than canceling all laws and crossing your fingers.

    Do laws need to be looked at? I think so, but I'm not going to sit here and write out an entire piece of legislation. I'm just saying that the code of law is one aspect of this larger issue that needs to be examined. Some things legitimately need to be debated.

    "But criminals will ignore the law!" some will say. That doesn't mean that the answer is to hope average citizens never make an error in judgment when trying to stop a criminal. The answer is enforcement, both of existing laws and any new laws needed to fill in any flaws or gaps. Of course criminals will ignore the law - they already did exactly that to earn the label - but they're on the streets committing crimes because they are not in prison or otherwise being dealt with.

    But then you have to address the source of the criminals in the first place. This might be the hardest part. You're going to need societal outreach, some kind of efforts to address poverty and mental illness... you really have to get into the communities like Chicago where the worst violence is and figure out what needs to be addressed, then aggressively confront it. The problem is, doing so to any effect would likely not be cheap.

    Both sides need to cool their heads a little and see the bigger picture. This isn't just about any one thing. This is a vast subject, a puzzle if you will, and there's one thing all puzzles have in common: they all have more than one piece. All the sides of this need to come together and figure out how their views - the pieces - fit together to solve it.

    (Banner by Matori)
    Beyond all ideals, the truth shall set you free...
    Most Recent: 18: Winter of Discontent
    Next: The Weight of the World (Part 1)

    The steps on the road to the truth.
    The Firestorm Rebellion
    The Victory Star of Fate


    Glacidia Network - The Home for Fanworks
    Best Wishes appreciation blog

  3. #853
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    How exactly is both sides in black and white? The strong believers of the 2nd Amendment believe it's a god given right, which it is. God given means no matter what, that law can't be taken away from us. There is no reason behind even considering banning guns anywhere, especially in high crime rated cities. That's where all the gun violence is, not in small towns where everyone's friendly. Strong believes also believe you can't stop someone from getting a gun and they believe they should be able to have a gun because well, it's a right. If they want a gun then let them have a gun. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're endangering other people or anything. They're just normal people, and shouldn't be looked at as "paranoid" individuals because they own guns.

    Then you have the other side where they're against guns. Lashing out by saying "guns kill people" all that crap. No, a killer kills people not the gun. What they don't seem to realize is, there isn't just "gun violence". There are (correct me if I'm wrong) more deaths involving blunt objects like; bats, crowbars, hammers, etc than guns. Anything on this planet can be used as a weapon. You can't get rid of violence, it's impossible. Literally, impossible. They also believe banning guns will make it so a gun wont end up in somebody's hands. Are you serious? Keep dreaming and living in that fantasy world and living in fear. That's they're beliefs, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

    So once again, how is there black and white to both arguments? There isn't. The ones against guns are wrong about everything affiliated with guns because they want "peace". Banning guns will only make it worse, especially for citizens that follow the law. Killin innocents in the street because they're defenseless, yea you're so called "gun ban" to end gun violence worked didn't it? Not. You're gun ban lowered the crime rate? Not.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  4. #854
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Tork City
    Posts
    7,745

    Default

    You totally missed the point, and in the process of doing so, proved it. Calm down and read it again - I never said banning guns was the answer, in fact, I said the exact opposite. I'm agreeing with you on that. The only thing I suggested is that the law should be examined for flaws and gaps.

    "Black and white" is a very simple figure of speech. The argument has two sides, and both of them believe that their arguments are 100% correct while the other side's are completely invalid. That's what that means, and I don't think you can deny that that is a fair description of this.

    (Banner by Matori)
    Beyond all ideals, the truth shall set you free...
    Most Recent: 18: Winter of Discontent
    Next: The Weight of the World (Part 1)

    The steps on the road to the truth.
    The Firestorm Rebellion
    The Victory Star of Fate


    Glacidia Network - The Home for Fanworks
    Best Wishes appreciation blog

  5. #855
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    421

    Default

    I know what you said, my last paragraph wasn't aimed at you, it was aimed at those who believe banning guns will do something. Also, there is no black and white because the ones that are against guns and want to ban them have a reason, but they're reasoning makes no sense while at the same time showing they're stupidity. While the other side has very good reasoning and makes perfect sense. The ones against guns just have they're heads stuck in the sand, simple as that.

    Which flaws and gaps? You talkin mental illness testings, like psychological testings? Or something completely irrelevant to this? If testings, why would you suppose half if not more would follow the law anyway? Sure, more will than criminals but you can't satisfy everybody.
    Last edited by ShinyUmbreon189; 23rd April 2013 at 11:36 AM.
    My Soundcloud

    My ReverbNation

    Music & Musicians Alliance Club


  6. #856
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Tork City
    Posts
    7,745

    Default

    My apologies. I didn't pick up on where you changed who you were addressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 View Post
    Which flaws and gaps? You talkin mental illness testings, like psychological testings? Or something completely irrelevant to this? If testings, why would you suppose half if not more would follow the law anyway? Sure, more will than criminals but you can't satisfy everybody.
    I suppose that would be one gap, but I think the things that could be done at a federal level at this point would be minimal. To effectively fight the problem I think you'd need to look at high-crime areas and find what is driving the crime there, then develop a specific local plan to address those underlying issues. When I say that I mean things like poverty, gang activity and border-related crimes, for example. Maybe I'm idealistic but I think that if you can cut off what drives people to commit crimes, headway can be made.

    Now obviously there are those who will still ignore laws both old and new. Something's got to be done about that, too, and I do think there's something to be said for stronger enforcement. There's a whole other discussion we could get into regarding that, but since I'm writing this at six in the morning, I'll be brief and just say that the punishment/rehabilitation side of the law needs to be more deterrent...ing?

    Like I said, it wouldn't be cheap, nor would it be easy, but I think doing more to learn about crime and address its root causes is something that could be a worthwhile effort.

    (Banner by Matori)
    Beyond all ideals, the truth shall set you free...
    Most Recent: 18: Winter of Discontent
    Next: The Weight of the World (Part 1)

    The steps on the road to the truth.
    The Firestorm Rebellion
    The Victory Star of Fate


    Glacidia Network - The Home for Fanworks
    Best Wishes appreciation blog

  7. #857
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pokemon world, I wish ._...XD
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Butler View Post


    I suppose that would be one gap, but I think the things that could be done at a federal level at this point would be minimal. To effectively fight the problem I think you'd need to look at high-crime areas and find what is driving the crime there, then develop a specific local plan to address those underlying issues. When I say that I mean things like poverty, gang activity and border-related crimes, for example. Maybe I'm idealistic but I think that if you can cut off what drives people to commit crimes, headway can be made.

    Now obviously there are those who will still ignore laws both old and new. Something's got to be done about that, too, and I do think there's something to be said for stronger enforcement. There's a whole other discussion we could get into regarding that, but since I'm writing this at six in the morning, I'll be brief and just say that the punishment/rehabilitation side of the law needs to be more deterrent...ing?

    Like I said, it wouldn't be cheap, nor would it be easy, but I think doing more to learn about crime and address its root causes is something that could be a worthwhile effort.
    Are you suggesting micro society changes?

    I agree with this sentimentally, but I'm wondering what exactly should change. I know of a couple theories out to explain crime. They've been criticized, but I think altogether they explain quite a bit. (Labeling theory, strain theory, etc.)

    Really, i think the problem is how personalized each reason is for doing such. Even if it is stupid or violent, it is still very varied.

    Ergh, excuse me, I just get interested when someone mentions a more personal level.
    When refering to learning..."In other words, groups are not where ideas are born. Groups are where ideas are evaluated."
    My eyes! (my eyes!) are filled with curiosity! You think! (You think!) that you have power over me! In this life! (This life!) There’s no room for you and me! So turn around and face the day with me!
    Such a sexy song. Urgh.

  8. #858
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    unfunny location
    Posts
    1,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Butler View Post
    But then you have to address the source of the criminals in the first place. This might be the hardest part. You're going to need societal outreach, some kind of efforts to address poverty and mental illness... you really have to get into the communities like Chicago where the worst violence is and figure out what needs to be addressed, then aggressively confront it. The problem is, doing so to any effect would likely not be cheap.
    From what I've seen, the cities with the worst murder rates (New Orleans, Detroit, etc.) tend to have two things in common: high poverty and and illegal drugs. While I do support gun control, I think it's more important that we go after poverty, fix our broken drug laws, end the War on Drugs, before we start going after guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinyUmbreon189 View Post
    How exactly is both sides in black and white? The strong believers of the 2nd Amendment believe it's a god given right, which it is. God given means no matter what, that law can't be taken away from us. There is no reason behind even considering banning guns anywhere, especially in high crime rated cities. That's where all the gun violence is, not in small towns where everyone's friendly. Strong believes also believe you can't stop someone from getting a gun and they believe they should be able to have a gun because well, it's a right. If they want a gun then let them have a gun. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're endangering other people or anything. They're just normal people, and shouldn't be looked at as "paranoid" individuals because they own guns.

    Then you have the other side where they're against guns. Lashing out by saying "guns kill people" all that crap. No, a killer kills people not the gun. What they don't seem to realize is, there isn't just "gun violence". There are (correct me if I'm wrong) more deaths involving blunt objects like; bats, crowbars, hammers, etc than guns. Anything on this planet can be used as a weapon. You can't get rid of violence, it's impossible. Literally, impossible. They also believe banning guns will make it so a gun wont end up in somebody's hands. Are you serious? Keep dreaming and living in that fantasy world and living in fear. That's they're beliefs, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

    So once again, how is there black and white to both arguments? There isn't. The ones against guns are wrong about everything affiliated with guns because they want "peace". Banning guns will only make it worse, especially for citizens that follow the law. Killin innocents in the street because they're defenseless, yea you're so called "gun ban" to end gun violence worked didn't it? Not. You're gun ban lowered the crime rate? Not.
    You're painting this as a completely black and white issue, which it isn't. You act like everyone can be divided into two groups, those who are 100% against all gun control, and those that want a complete and total gun ban, as if there is no middle ground.
    Pokemon isn't real, I'm sorry

  9. #859
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Poverty does not cause crime. If anything, crime causes poverty.


    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/8...ic-conditions#


    The simplest is that crime just isn’t closely related to economic conditions. Consider, after all, the two big crime epidemics in the twentieth century—the first took root in the late 1960s, during a period of healthy growth; the other came during the economic doldrums of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The only constant here, it seems, is that both outbreaks were fueled by a major expansion of drug markets: heroin in the 1970s, crack in the 1990s.
    There is no gun show loophole. That is a distraction by anti-gun people.

    The problem with mental health criteria will be the "Better safe than sorry" school of diagnosis. Someone decides to report everyone because he doesn't want to get sued if someone he thought wasn't dangerous snaps.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  10. #860
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Tork City
    Posts
    7,745

    Default

    Mental health won't address everything anyway. You might skim off the Loughners, Holmeses and Lanzas, but as much attention as they get, we've already established that they aren't the only type of gun-related criminals out there.

    It's already been established that controlling the 'gun' part of 'gun crime' has only a limited effect at most. I think there's, therefore, more to be achieved by addressing the 'crime' part. Plus, if it works, you don't only get less gun-related crime, you can get a lower overall crime rate, which I don't think anyone would complain about.

    (Banner by Matori)
    Beyond all ideals, the truth shall set you free...
    Most Recent: 18: Winter of Discontent
    Next: The Weight of the World (Part 1)

    The steps on the road to the truth.
    The Firestorm Rebellion
    The Victory Star of Fate


    Glacidia Network - The Home for Fanworks
    Best Wishes appreciation blog

  11. #861
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Could someone please explain to me how owning a gun is a "God-given right." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember guns being in the Bible.

  12. #862
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Could someone please explain to me how owning a gun is a "God-given right." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember guns being in the Bible.
    Taking religion out of the equation, you don't believe people have the right to own whatever they wish as long as they don't intend to do harm?

  13. #863
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    Taking religion out of the equation, you don't believe people have the right to own whatever they wish as long as they don't intend to do harm?
    That was not the question and has nothing to do with my post.

  14. #864
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    That was not the question and has nothing to do with my post.
    Fine, then I will reply with something related to the Bible:

    Jesus said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
    —Luke 22:36, NIV

    Advocating self-defense with a weapon.

  15. #865
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    Fine, then I will reply with something related to the Bible:

    Jesus said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
    —Luke 22:36, NIV

    Advocating self-defense with a weapon.

    Sword =/= Gun. We are talking about guns specifically in this thread.

    Please hang up and try again. (Also, Jesus said that if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword, so how much of a violent weapons advocate can he really be?)

    Also, that verse is taken entirely out of context and the actual intent of that verse is highly contested among theologists. The fact of the matter is, owning a gun is not at all a "God-given right," it's a government-issued privilege.
    Last edited by Pesky Persian; 23rd April 2013 at 11:27 PM.

  16. #866
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    That house in Dewford
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Wow, Pesky Persian! You took the words right out of my mouth! And you did it with, like each post on this page, too!


    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    Poverty does not cause crime. If anything, crime causes poverty.
    I'd be careful about that. While I'm a firm believer in the fact that the chain of causation doesn't just go "poverty leads to crime," I wouldn't argue that poverty never leads to crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by ldsman View Post
    There is no gun show loophole. That is a distraction by anti-gun people.
    Really? I'd like to see some facts on that, since I've heard undoubtedly responsible people who should know referring to the gun show loophole.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Butler View Post
    It's already been established that controlling the 'gun' part of 'gun crime' has only a limited effect at most. I think there's, therefore, more to be achieved by addressing the 'crime' part. Plus, if it works, you don't only get less gun-related crime, you can get a lower overall crime rate, which I don't think anyone would complain about.
    I'd love to say this has been established. Especially since there appear to have been some posting with rather extreme views, I think this will have to be debated further. Given that (and since it's gone to a new page without any advocates of strong gun restrictions responding), I'll need to bring out my open question again:




    Has anyone noticed that the guns involved in the Newtown incident were not, in fact, owned by the shooter? Okay, fine, increase background checks. Close the gun show loophole. From what I understand, such a loophole is not so reasonable anyway. Keep mentally unbalanced people from buying guns. All of that makes some sense. But don't pretend these things would have prevented this shooting. Even if you make all guns illegal, how do you prevent people from finding someone's illegal gun?

    I'm addressing this to anyone in favor of greatly increased gun restrictions: What does it mean when you have people committing these shootings with somebody else's weapons? How does it matter whether the weapons were legal or not? Is it really an answer to think that simply "making less guns available" is enough to prevent guns from falling into these people's hands?

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  17. #867
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    Has anyone noticed that the guns involved in the Newtown incident were not, in fact, owned by the shooter? Okay, fine, increase background checks. Close the gun show loophole. From what I understand, such a loophole is not so reasonable anyway. Keep mentally unbalanced people from buying guns. All of that makes some sense. But don't pretend these things would have prevented this shooting. Even if you make all guns illegal, how do you prevent people from finding someone's illegal gun?

    I'm addressing this to anyone in favor of greatly increased gun restrictions: What does it mean when you have people committing these shootings with somebody else's weapons? How does it matter whether the weapons were legal or not? Is it really an answer to think that simply "making less guns available" is enough to prevent guns from falling into these people's hands?
    Let's consider the Newtown shooter situation. His mother owned a gun collection. He had easy access to guns because someone else had easy access to guns. If guns were a little more difficult to obtain, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be less guns to steal from other people?

  18. #868
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    These United States.
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Sword =/= Gun. We are talking about guns specifically in this thread.
    Okay, then why limit the debate to whether it's a "God-given" right? You make it sound like if all gun owners are religious and claim that their right comes from God, which is obviously ignorant.

    Please hang up and try again.

    (Also, Jesus said that if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword, so how much of a violent weapons advocate can he really be?)

    Also, that verse is taken entirely out of context and the actual intent of that verse is highly contested among theologists.
    I will cede this part of the argument since I am no theologian and your points are fair.

    The fact of the matter is, owning a gun is not at all a "God-given right," it's a government-issued privilege.
    I find it funny how it seems that you trust one group of people (The government and law enforcement) more with guns than another group of people (civilians). If this is not the case then feel free to elaborate on your stance regarding gun ownership. If my claim is true about my perception of your stance, however, then it is insane and foolish for you to want a monopoly on firepower for the State. Especially if you're on the other side.

  19. #869
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    That house in Dewford
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    That was kinda already addressed in the last sentence of each of those paragraphs. I'm not trying to pin this one on you, but there are people going around saying, "Let's make sure an incident like this never happens again!" Now think about it for a minute. To know that it won't happen again, you can't just say, "make it harder." You would have to know that they also would not get their hands on someone's illegally-obtained gun. In fact, making guns "a little more difficult to obtain" won't do it; even if we make them a lot more difficult, I think you can see how wide of a gap that is in prevention.


    And by the way, I just want to expand on what I said I agreed with in your posts a moment ago. The recent increase in people everywhere debating about gun rights has caused me to reexamine whether guns are a right. It happened when someone told me that in Israel, guns aren't a right, they're a privilege. That makes sense. Over here, driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege. I want to stress this because I'm not trying to just blast you with lots of fired-up pro-gun arguments (puns intended). I truly wonder whether it is quite right for the Constitution to declare it a right to keep and bear arms. But at the same time, I wonder whether such emotionally-loaded efforts will do more harm than good.

    Sprites ripped by Yoshi Clone of spritersresource.com. Banner by my brother ShinySandshrew.

  20. #870
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Pure View Post
    Okay, then why limit the debate to whether it's a "God-given" right? You make it sound like if all gun owners are religious and claim that their right comes from God, which is obviously ignorant.
    I am not at all limiting the debate. I was responding to one post by one person, not the debate as a whole.

    I find it funny how it seems that you trust one group of people (The government and law enforcement) more with guns than another group of people (civilians). If this is not the case then feel free to elaborate on your stance regarding gun ownership. If my claim is true about my perception of your stance, however, then it is insane and foolish for you to want a monopoly on firepower for the State. Especially if you're on the other side.
    I never said I wanted a monopoly of firepower for the state. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said it's a government-issued privilege because the government (which we as a people elected, by the way) makes laws. The government decided to create the second amendment and allow the ownership of guns. God did not. That's what I was responding to. To say that owning a gun is a God-given right is a fallacious statement and really just silly.

    I am no fan of guns, I will say that much. However, I have no issue if they are used for a practical purpose (such as hunting), but the fact of the matter is that we have a serious problem in this country with gun violence. I am completely for stricter gun control laws. Consider how many of the crimes in that link are accidents, from momentary fits of rage, self-inflicted, or simply petty crimes (protip: petty criminals are more likely to use weapons easily available, which at this point are guns). How many of those people would have died had guns been less available? All of the accidental deaths could be ruled out. Many of the spur-of-the-moment ones could be too.

    Also, I don't remember who said that poverty doesn't cause violent crimes, but every sociological study conducted on the relationship between poverty and violent crime says you're wrong. Please at least bother to do some research. Inequality leads to violence. Period. (Here's something to get you started on your quest for actual peer-reviewed knowledge.)

  21. #871
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    from momentary fits of rage, self-inflicted, or simply petty crimes (protip: petty criminals are more likely to use weapons easily available, which at this point are guns). How many of those people would have died had guns been less available? All of the accidental deaths could be ruled out. Many of the spur-of-the-moment ones could be too.
    It is hard to say accidental deaths would be ruled out, as in a momentary fit of rage a blunt object or knife would do just as much damage, the same for self inflected wounds.

    And to answer your question with a question: How many more rapes and killings would happen if people did not have a gun to defend themselves?

  22. #872
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    It is hard to say accidental deaths would be ruled out, as in a momentary fit of rage a blunt object or knife would do just as much damage, the same for self inflected wounds.

    And to answer your question with a question: How many more rapes and killings would happen if people did not have a gun to defend themselves?
    I think it's already been discussed (ad nauseum) that blunt objects and knives don't have the death rates that guns do. Not by a long shot. It's a lot harder for a small child to stab himself hard enough to kill himself than it is for him to shoot himself in the face. Let's be real here. It's a hell of a lot harder to "accidentally" kill yourself with a blunt object or a knife.

    Rapes need to be prevented by a change in our society. How many more rapes would be prevented if we stopped shaming rape victims, started giving people who rape harsher sentences, quit sympathizing with rapists, and taught our (mostly men) how to treat other people (mostly women) with the respect they deserve? How about we address the societal problems involved in the issue of rape rather than promoting even more violence? As far as killings go, again, petty criminals are less likely to use guns if they're less available. You cannot prevent all violence, this is true. That doesn't mean you should promote more violence in it's place.

  23. #873
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    I think it's already been discussed (ad nauseum) that blunt objects and knives don't have the death rates that guns do. Not by a long shot. It's a lot harder for a small child to stab himself hard enough to kill himself than it is for him to shoot himself in the face. Let's be real here. It's a hell of a lot harder to "accidentally" kill yourself with a blunt object or a knife.
    You did not talk about "accidentally" killing yourself, you talked about fits of rage, and self inflected wounds. Which to me would say things like a person going crazy and trying to kill his wife, or a person attempting suicide, along with the accidents you mentioned. By the way it is not THAT hard for a child to accidently kill themselves with a knife, all they need to do is be running with it and slip and fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesky Persian View Post
    Rapes need to be prevented by a change in our society. How many more rapes would be prevented if we stopped shaming rape victims, started giving people who rape harsher sentences, quit sympathizing with rapists, and taught our (mostly men) how to treat other people (mostly women) with the respect they deserve? How about we address the societal problems involved in the issue of rape rather than promoting even more violence? As far as killings go, again, petty criminals are less likely to use guns if they're less available. You cannot prevent all violence, this is true. That doesn't mean you should promote more violence in it's place.
    So you think it is society that causes rape? Not mental problems, not sexual urges.... society?

    All of those things you talked about are great except they will not prevent rapes, and at that point when you have a much more powerful man or woman, attacking a smaller man or woman, there is a need for a force equalizer.

    Also while it is nice to think that if we were to have "stricter" gun laws that they would be less available to "petty criminals" you forget about how many guns are actually on the black market in the United States, and how making a item much harder to procure only raises it's prominence on the black market. The Boston Bombers for example, who would probably be labeled as "petty criminals" for their use of materials to make ordinary bombs, did not have gun permits, yet they were still able to get firearms to have a shoot out with police. Gun laws did not stop them.

  24. #874
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    I'd be careful about that. While I'm a firm believer in the fact that the chain of causation doesn't just go "poverty leads to crime," I wouldn't argue that poverty never leads to crime.
    Fine. Poverty, by itself, does not cause crime. Plenty of poor folk don't commit crimes.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post
    Really? I'd like to see some facts on that, since I've heard undoubtedly responsible people who should know referring to the gun show loophole.
    ?
    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fa...n+show&st=&ps= Private sellers are specifically exempted. It is just more convinient to go to a gun show when someone decides to sell a gun. They could sell their gun at a garage sale, a lemonade stand, etc and still not need a background check.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFightingPikachu View Post

    I'd love to say this has been established. Especially since there appear to have been some posting with rather extreme views, I think this will have to be debated further. Given that (and since it's gone to a new page without any advocates of strong gun restrictions responding), I'll need to bring out my open question again:




    Has anyone noticed that the guns involved in the Newtown incident were not, in fact, owned by the shooter? Okay, fine, increase background checks. Close the gun show loophole. From what I understand, such a loophole is not so reasonable anyway. Keep mentally unbalanced people from buying guns. All of that makes some sense. But don't pretend these things would have prevented this shooting. Even if you make all guns illegal, how do you prevent people from finding someone's illegal gun?

    I'm addressing this to anyone in favor of greatly increased gun restrictions: What does it mean when you have people committing these shootings with somebody else's weapons? How does it matter whether the weapons were legal or not? Is it really an answer to think that simply "making less guns available" is enough to prevent guns from falling into these people's hands?
    It wouldn't help. Someone intent on harming others will find a way to do so. If there were fewer guns to steal, then they could build a basic gun in a machine shop. Or use the newspapers to find a list of gunowners in their area to go and rob.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  25. #875
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    You did not talk about "accidentally" killing yourself, you talked about fits of rage, and self inflected wounds. Which to me would say things like a person going crazy and trying to kill his wife, or a person attempting suicide, along with the accidents you mentioned. By the way it is not THAT hard for a child to accidently kill themselves with a knife, all they need to do is be running with it and slip and fall.
    Uhm... Did you bother to look at the link? The link talks about how many people died, not were wounded. So yes, self-inflicted death by either suicide or accidentally shooting themselves. I thought that was pretty clear. My apologies. Also, how frequently do kids kill themselves with knives? I'd like to see that data, please. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's common.

    So you think it is society that causes rape? Not mental problems, not sexual urges.... society?
    Not everyone who rapes is mentally unstable. I'd wager they have some serious control/dominance issues but that doesn't necessarily equate to a mental health condition. Not to mention how much casual rape happens and sexual assaults that people don't realize are actually a problem. And sexual urges do not cause rape. Seriously. No psychologist believes that rape is caused by sexual desires. It's about power, not sex.
    Edit: Also, the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim knew. How many people do you really think are going to want to shoot their family member, neighbor, or significant other? You're acting like most of these rapes are committed by strangers off the street and that simply isn't true.
    All of those things you talked about are great except they will not prevent rapes, and at that point when you have a much more powerful man or woman, attacking a smaller man or woman, there is a need for a force equalizer.
    Prove to me that none of those things prevent rape?

    Also while it is nice to think that if we were to have "stricter" gun laws that they would be less available to "petty criminals" you forget about how many guns are actually on the black market in the United States, and how making a item much harder to procure only raises it's prominence on the black market. The Boston Bombers for example, who would probably be labeled as "petty criminals" for their use of materials to make ordinary bombs, did not have gun permits, yet they were still able to get firearms to have a shoot out with police. Gun laws did not stop them.
    Terrorists are in no way petty criminals. Are you being serious right now?
    (I would also think that most petty criminals, say the teenagers breaking into homes or snatching someone's bag off the street, aren't really too involved in the black market. That's more along the lines of gang activity, which is far from petty crime.)
    Last edited by Pesky Persian; 24th April 2013 at 12:34 AM.

Page 35 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2531323334353637383945 ... 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
  •