Page 4 of 7 « First 1234567 Last»
Results 61 to 80 of 138
  1. #61
    Scathach YowYan's Avatar
    Status
    YowYan is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    11,608
    Location
    At the Organization, decapitating Rimuto
    Sun Gazing, Peripheral Blazing
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

     
         

  2. #62
    Senior Member Stencil's Avatar
    Status
    Stencil is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,538
    Location
    Den Haag
    Been quite inactive...
     



    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Guns shouldn't be legal to own.
     
         

  3. #63
    Member NarutoDKurosaki's Avatar
    Status
    NarutoDKurosaki is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    778
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stencil View Post
    Guns shouldn't be legal to own.
    Any reason why?
     
         

  4. #64
    The Legend of NB Inanimated's Avatar
    Status
    Inanimated is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,523
    Location
    The legend returns
    I have ascended!
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    We need to stop people from getting high powered rifles. There's absolutely no reason to have them. Hand guns and Hunting Rifles are fine but, when you get into the extremely unnecessary guns, it's outrageous. People can just grab one and do what they want.
     
         

  5. #65
    Senior Member Cyanide Addiction's Avatar
    Status
    Cyanide Addiction is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,937
    Location
    Fort Myers, Florida, United States
    I'm back in black... but I am
    not sure about the hitting of
    the sack...
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    We don't need anything bigger than hand guns, and hunting rifles in my opinion, and the rules on getting them need to be stricter. That old argument of "Well how do you stop someone carrying an AK-47 with a handgun?" is ridiculous. How do you? With a well aimed shot to the skull. In the hands of the right person, that's entirely possible. So many people are impotent with guns, including myself, it's not funny. Many of these impotent people, not including me, own guns anyways.
     
         

  6. #66
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,372
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanide Addiction View Post
    We don't need anything bigger than hand guns, and hunting rifles in my opinion, and the rules on getting them need to be stricter.
    The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the cases where these people acquire these weapons is completely outside of legal and regulatory channels.

    That old argument of "Well how do you stop someone carrying an AK-47 with a handgun?" is ridiculous. How do you? With a well aimed shot to the skull. In the hands of the right person, that's entirely possible.
    At 100 yards, you are shooting a ballistic trajectory with a hand-gun and hitting a target that cannot be seen from behind the iron sights.

    That's practically a flat-line trajectory for most supersonic rounds (.22LR and up). I'm pinpoint accurate with the M-4 and M-16 while standing out to the maximum effective range of the iron sights (500 meters).

    Type IIIA body armor is concealable and will turn all but some of the largest handgun rounds into an unpleasant thud at all but ranges under 25 meters. Your only option for engagement is, while exposing yourself to fire, dropping a round into my head (and there exist helmet systems and visors that can absorb a few handgun rounds).

    Handguns are largely useless weapons outside of the role of a sidearm (which is your "Oh ****!" reflex-save weapon). If they are close enough for a handgun, they are close enough to sprint and knife (or already close enough that you're going to be in a grapple by time you draw your weapon). The rifle is the weapon you use to keep bad things out of your comfort zone.

    So many people are impotent with guns, including myself, it's not funny. Many of these impotent people, not including me, own guns anyways.
    And many people are impotent with motor vehicles and should never be issued a license. Still, others, should never be allowed to touch a computer (their stupidity contributes to the spread of viruses that then spread to other computers and/or utilize their computer as part of a distributed denial of service attack).

    And even fewer people should be allowed to give birth. The only people of poor parenting skills who should be allowed to give birth are those with decent genetic dispositions. Breeding them and giving their offspring to responsible parents would be a very good thing for people going forward. So would fire-bombing most ghetto regions and trailer parks to get rid of crack and meth addicts who do nothing but pump out teenage mothers with welfare dependent children (who pump out more welfare dependent children).

    I'm getting a little absurd with that line of logic... but why should you be allowed to participate in such an important act as procreation (developing another human life(s)) without a proper license? It has been deemed that people with admittedly no knowledge of firearms can tell me that I shouldn't have such a dangerous device. I deem that people with no ability to demonstrate they know how to raise a kid or that their genetics are worthwhile should be allowed to give birth.

    Got a problem with it? Sure I can find that rifle that you said I shouldn't have. You have something to say about it? All complaints can now be filed with my rifle's barrel. Thanks for making anyone who happens to have one, as well, a criminal like me.
     
         

  7. #67
    Senior Member Cyanide Addiction's Avatar
    Status
    Cyanide Addiction is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,937
    Location
    Fort Myers, Florida, United States
    I'm back in black... but I am
    not sure about the hitting of
    the sack...
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aim64C View Post

    Got a problem with it? Sure I can find that rifle that you said I shouldn't have. You have something to say about it? All complaints can now be filed with my rifle's barrel. Thanks for making anyone who happens to have one, as well, a criminal like me.
    I do believe this is where you went too far with it. Yes I have a problem with it. I have a problem with this too. But like anything else, it can be solved with non violent action. (That's not to say I couldn't take out that rifle I know I shouldn't own, but still do too, but we're all adults here, right? Oops.. Maybe not..)
     
         

  8. #68
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,372
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanide Addiction View Post
    I do believe this is where you went too far with it. Yes I have a problem with it. I have a problem with this too. But like anything else, it can be solved with non violent action. (That's not to say I couldn't take out that rifle I know I shouldn't own, but still do too, but we're all adults here, right? Oops.. Maybe not..)
    You really don't seem to understand much about this world, and seem to be lacking reading comprehension.

    Dead people don't get to make decisions. Living people do.

    Let's suppose I get a hold of a howitzer cannon. Completely hypothetical... but you've already decided that howitzer cannons are just too much power and not even your national guard has one (or is prepared to deal with one... because no one has one - right?). You want your business to run? Pay me money. Don't agree? Guess we'll see what that howitzer does to your factory.

    Going to call the police? You mean that smouldering crater?

    Might does not make right - but might does make authority. Those who challenge that authority without the means to overthrow it will be eliminated and those who live will subject to its authority.

    Which is exactly the point I was making. Want to have a kid? Sorry - you're not suitable. Disagree? Well, if I see any munchkins running around your house, they're getting dropped like rabbits. And what are you to do if you've effectively defanged the people who would normally have stood up against such ideas and lain down the law?
     
         

  9. #69
    Member AngryRock's Avatar
    Status
    AngryRock is offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    845
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanide Addiction View Post
    I do believe this is where you went too far with it. Yes I have a problem with it. I have a problem with this too. But like anything else, it can be solved with non violent action. (That's not to say I couldn't take out that rifle I know I shouldn't own, but still do too, but we're all adults here, right? Oops.. Maybe not..)
    I think he was just giving an example.
     
         

  10. #70
    Senior Member Anorien16's Avatar
    Status
    Anorien16 is online now
    Gender
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5,203
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Well what about no Military Grade Automatic rifles (But all other forms of slower firing arms) for households with people under 25 or People who dont have a proper livelihood or People with violent pasts or problem children or people who exhibit extremist behavior etc as these people are most likely to go and do a nut job shootout . . . . . OR perhaps limiting the Number of Automatic Firearm ammo amount/number . . or if these seems too tall order how about a compulsory Gun Safety Regulation and Precaution Course for those who wants to keep fire arms?

    Also I dont think most people are advocating TOTAL GUN BAN anyway.

    BTW I dont think anyone can take away your Second Amendment THAT easily if ever anyone can ....... it wld takes decades to do so.

    PS If its about about resisting Government Opression, I dont know but doesnt each state have a Militia group or something independent of feds?
     
         
    Last edited by Anorien16; 01-28-2013 at 08:07 PM.

  11. #71
    Senior Member Jigson's Avatar
    Status
    Jigson is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,511
    Location
    Netherlands, Noord-Brabant
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Guns should be banned, not only in America everywhere in the world.
     
         

  12. #72
    Member NarutoDKurosaki's Avatar
    Status
    NarutoDKurosaki is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    778
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jigson View Post
    Guns should be banned, not only in America everywhere in the world.
    Please, further elaborate
     
         

  13. #73
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,372
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anorien16 View Post
    Well what about no Military Grade Automatic rifles
    ... No what?

    Military forces choose weapons manufactured by various manufacturers who sell their weapons on the markets open to them (governments just happen to select them for their police and military forces, as well).

    If you mean any weapon with a detachable magazine that fires in semi-automatic... then you cover what most people consider "assault" or "military" weapons. But you cover about 80% of the rifle market with that.

    (But all other forms of slower firing arms) for households with people under 25 or People who dont have a proper livelihood or People with violent pasts or problem children or people who exhibit extremist behavior etc as these people are most likely to go and do a nut job shootout . . . . .
    That's all difficult to determine. You would be more effective at preventing gun violence by raising the minimum driving age to 23 (give them two years to binge drink themselves to the realization that it's stupid).

    The problem with this idea is that the U.S. has few standards for mental health screenings and does not have a centralized database of such records. Mental health diagnoses are some of the most controversial and varied, as well (which makes it a very, very controversial thing to base purchasing rights off of). Further - in many of these cases, these 'unstable' individuals who go on shooting sprees do not have records of being evaluated for mental illness by any professional establishment.

    We don't have nationalized screening for mental illness (and it's unlikely such a screening program would pick up any but the most extreme/obvious of pathologies - the discrete ones that manifest themselves in 'snap' behavior would probably slip through).

    OR perhaps limiting the Number of Automatic Firearm ammo amount/number
    Pretty much useless. Manufacturing magazines is simple enough to be done in a small workshop. Honestly have considered going into the business of manufacturing less-than-legal magazine sizes if a ban gets passed. All of the meth cookers get overlooked - I'm sure authorities will be very quick to crack down on my enabling of wanton death and destruction.

    I will, most certainly, ensure that I have magazines designed to support the weapon system I have as it was envisioned.

    . . or if these seems too tall order how about a compulsory Gun Safety Regulation and Precaution Course for those who wants to keep fire arms?
    This is more reasonable - though I think the most effective way for the government to get involved in this type of scheme is to have a tax rebate system in place on firearm safes and storage solutions. Most of the 'problem' with firearms is people who improperly store their firearms and children get a hold of them.

    That said - we have licensing programs that require you to demonstrate driving proficiency to a uniformed law enforcement officer. And who is satisfied with the quality of drivers on the road?

    Also I dont think most people are advocating TOTAL GUN BAN anyway.
    The problem is that the people who like to spout off about what guns are and are not reasonable to own have zero experience with a firearm, to begin with. They have no idea what makes a weapon so dangerous as to be disallowed in society.

    Which, to be honest, after all the training I've received and the weapons I've handled... I've yet to encounter a man-portable firearm that is currently legal to own yet is so effective at whole-sale slaughter that it should be banned.

    Granted... I can legally purchase a .50 caliber browning automatic crew-serve weapon. True - it will be a semi-auto weapon... but that's just controlled by the back-plate that any competent machinist could alter to provide full auto functionality to a belt-fed anti-material rifle.

    Though the cost of ammunition pretty much keeps that in check (you'd have to have thousands of dollars of ammo to have an effective combat load for that weapon...)... and you'd have to mount it onto a vehicle or something to make it mobile.

    BTW I dont think anyone can take away your Second Amendment THAT easily if ever anyone can ....... it wld takes decades to do so.
    People like me would not allow it to happen. There simply aren't enough gun owners in opposition to the second amendment to make the fight last long enough.

    I'll be a little too honest, here, and say that I would kill thousands of people if it was necessary to preserve the 2nd amendment - whether they are armed or not. Now - the catch is that they must be an imminent threat to the 2nd amendment (doing that without, themselves, being armed is a bit difficult to imagine). Basically - what it will amount to is I'm going to own a firearm, and anyone who decides I don't need it is going to have to be willing to kill me to get it.

    That will continue until they either get it through their heads that I don't shoot things that aren't a threat and stop trying to take it, or there are simply no more people who want to take such things away left alive.

    It's unfortunate that they would be so insistent... but when it comes to a contest of wills - I will be the one remaining. It's not about right and wrong, social responsibility, or anything else. I've decided that there are certain things that I will not give up in life - and the consequence of anyone deciding to attempt to remove that from me will be a contest of wills. If they are then serious enough about imposing their will, then a mortal outcome is inescapable.

    If that means that, between myself and my neighbors - we decide that we are no longer willing to live under the rules and laws of the nation at large; then I back secession from the union and a declaration of an independent legal and national status. I don't want to force anyone else to live in a way that is inconsistent with their views (so long as they are non-destructive). I expect the same out of other people, and will seek independence from anyone who attempts to rule over me.

    PS If its about about resisting Government Opression, I dont know but doesnt each state have a Militia group or something independent of feds?
    There are state militias that are in something of a quirky status. They are recognized by some states as an organized military that can be called upon in the event of an invasion (sort of a non-state funded reserve). They are not usually recognized by the federal government as such (and affiliation with a Militia as a member of the U.S. Military will constitute a conflict of interest) - and they play a complex political game with both supporters and opponents in federal offices and agencies.

    Despite the "conflict of interest" mentioned above - the militias often have many sympathizers within the military (and many more in the military who are less privy to the Militias but are in ideological agreement, unknowingly). They are also quite influential in regional politics - which puts them into a love-hate relationship with homeland security.

    The reason is how militias operate. They are, generally, constructed of very passionate individuals with an overall distrust for government authority. Interestingly enough, prior-service Special Warfare Operators (Seals, Green Berets, Marine Recon, Parajumpers, etc) tend to be found in militia groups heading up training of members and overseeing their structure. In a lot of cases, the militias can be considered just as well trained and equipped as most of our special operations forces in the military when it comes to squad engagements (though they lack access to the same type of support).

    The relatively paranoid atmosphere and training can breed a few wild ones that decide to misuse the training they've received. Since the Oklahoma City bombings, the more organized militias have tried to keep a much tighter eye on their members' behavior (since they are something of a fringe group, and they realize this) - but you'll always get a few that get a little crazy. Since militias tend to be a little secretive, it's not always known what crimes are committed by their members (nor can it be known exactly how involved a 'member' was... some of them are cafeteria members while others take on the training... while others fund the existence of the militia).

    The thing is that militias would not necessarily be exempt from firearm bans (though I doubt that would stop them... I'm sure a lot of them have stockpiles that may be legal by tangent only). Since much of a militia's resources are comprised of the personal armaments of individuals involved - it would be likely that a highly restrictive firearms ban would provoke some kind of response from the militias.

    Though I think a few states within the sphere of some of the larger militias have already started leaning the way of saying they will not enforce any new federal firearm restrictions.

    Which would actually be awesome... my state would benefit hugely from companies like Remington moving in after their home environment becomes hostile.

    So long as my state keeps the federal idiocy out of my life... I'm happy and have no reason to get all that upset. Sad that the role has reversed (used to be that the federal government was supposed to keep state idiocy and suppression of rights in check...).
     
         

  14. #74
    Member narutolover143's Avatar
    Status
    narutolover143 is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    62
    Location
    in chicago
    just to cool to be schooled :)
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    what's the point in having guns if your going to be foolish with them anyway curiosity hatred or just plain ignorance it all seems to end with someone dying. even the people that try to protect themselves have limits to what they can do with a gun. Guns should have never been made in the first place.
     
         

  15. #75
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,372
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by narutolover143 View Post
    what's the point in having guns if your going to be foolish with them anyway
    The sad thing about this is that you probably know several firearm owners and interact with them on a regular basis each and every day.

    Why do you think that "having guns means you will be foolish?" Because most firearm owners are responsible to the point that they are not going to get someone killed (though I will admit that quite a few do not properly store their firearms for their household... too many will store a firearm as if he/she is the only one in the house long after a wife/husband and kids are involved). You don't realize they are firearm owners because they aren't gunning down everything in their path.

    Which seems to be the image the media wants to paint these days: "But there was another side to [individual]... she was a gun enthusiast and regularly visited the shooting range. None of her neighbors realized just what kind of woman she was. A room in her home was lined with various assault weapons she kept on display."

    Yet the 'crazy lady with all the weapons' was not the one who flipped out and killed people. Granted - she exercised poor discretion in allowing her son access to those firearms... but how many parents allow their kids access to alcohol and vehicles (in the same night)?

    People will error and there is nothing that can be done about this... spare shackling everyone up and throwing them into a cell where they are force-fed and given intravenous hydration. That is the only way everyone can be fully free from harm so that they may enjoy life.

    curiosity hatred or just plain ignorance it all seems to end with someone dying.
    There are more firearms in the U.S. than there are registered vehicles being operated by fully government licensed individuals.

    Guess which one kills more people.

    even the people that try to protect themselves have limits to what they can do with a gun.
    So does someone trying to protect themselves with a knife. What's your point?

    Guns should have never been made in the first place.
    Pandora's Box.

    That said... it doesn't really matter what we humans create or discover - there are people in this world who realize that it merely takes the will to use the advantages they have to exploit others. People are, to some degree or another, sheep (at least in certain aspects of their life). You go about trusting in the herd.

    But it really only takes one of them to become a wolf - to realize that a little force... be it threat of contract termination, threat of death, destruction of property, public humiliation... any kind of advantage - can be used to exploit and restrict that other person's behavior or earnings. You won't give me preferential treatment? Sexual harassment charge. The rumors alone will destabilize your reputation. You want to run a business... that's fine - but there are some rough types around here that will rough up your shop... unless you pay us to protect you, that is. We offer a quite valuable service to the community for a nominal fee.

    Someone could easily develop a 'gun' to protect his/her community from thugs. Wouldn't be but a few years later and the thugs would be running around with 'guns.'

    I suggest you look into the Red Queen Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

    Basically... we are in direct competition with each other for resources that make our offspring more competitive. It even underlies our psychology. It's a simple concept that can apply to even very complex systems (such as society). Just as we have viruses that infect organisms... we have 'viruses' that infect society. Ideologies that sap the resources of a society for its own replication.

    Most forms of criminal behavior are a sort of social virus.

    Our own society is going to end up collapsing before too much longer because the life of a virus is considered equal to the life of a functional cell. We've failed to develop lymphocytes and antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification... and it's going to destroy us.

    But it will be amusing to watch.
     
         

  16. #76
    Member NarutoDKurosaki's Avatar
    Status
    NarutoDKurosaki is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    778
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aim64C View Post
    The sad thing about this is that you probably know several firearm owners and interact with them on a regular basis each and every day.

    Why do you think that "having guns means you will be foolish?" Because most firearm owners are responsible to the point that they are not going to get someone killed (though I will admit that quite a few do not properly store their firearms for their household... too many will store a firearm as if he/she is the only one in the house long after a wife/husband and kids are involved). You don't realize they are firearm owners because they aren't gunning down everything in their path.

    Which seems to be the image the media wants to paint these days: "But there was another side to [individual]... she was a gun enthusiast and regularly visited the shooting range. None of her neighbors realized just what kind of woman she was. A room in her home was lined with various assault weapons she kept on display."

    Yet the 'crazy lady with all the weapons' was not the one who flipped out and killed people. Granted - she exercised poor discretion in allowing her son access to those firearms... but how many parents allow their kids access to alcohol and vehicles (in the same night)?

    People will error and there is nothing that can be done about this... spare shackling everyone up and throwing them into a cell where they are force-fed and given intravenous hydration. That is the only way everyone can be fully free from harm so that they may enjoy life.



    There are more firearms in the U.S. than there are registered vehicles being operated by fully government licensed individuals.

    Guess which one kills more people.



    So does someone trying to protect themselves with a knife. What's your point?



    Pandora's Box.

    That said... it doesn't really matter what we humans create or discover - there are people in this world who realize that it merely takes the will to use the advantages they have to exploit others. People are, to some degree or another, sheep (at least in certain aspects of their life). You go about trusting in the herd.

    But it really only takes one of them to become a wolf - to realize that a little force... be it threat of contract termination, threat of death, destruction of property, public humiliation... any kind of advantage - can be used to exploit and restrict that other person's behavior or earnings. You won't give me preferential treatment? Sexual harassment charge. The rumors alone will destabilize your reputation. You want to run a business... that's fine - but there are some rough types around here that will rough up your shop... unless you pay us to protect you, that is. We offer a quite valuable service to the community for a nominal fee.

    Someone could easily develop a 'gun' to protect his/her community from thugs. Wouldn't be but a few years later and the thugs would be running around with 'guns.'

    I suggest you look into the Red Queen Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_Hypothesis

    Basically... we are in direct competition with each other for resources that make our offspring more competitive. It even underlies our psychology. It's a simple concept that can apply to even very complex systems (such as society). Just as we have viruses that infect organisms... we have 'viruses' that infect society. Ideologies that sap the resources of a society for its own replication.

    Most forms of criminal behavior are a sort of social virus.

    Our own society is going to end up collapsing before too much longer because the life of a virus is considered equal to the life of a functional cell. We've failed to develop lymphocytes and antibodies to address the problem of viral amplification... and it's going to destroy us.

    But it will be amusing to watch.
    woah
     
         

  17. #77
    Senior Member Micho22's Avatar
    Status
    Micho22 is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,204
    Location
    Somewhere in Europe
    :D
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    It shoud be forbidden
    Do you already forget what happened in the school so many children where killed and why because it is legit in the usa that every psychopath can own a gun
     
         

  18. #78
    Scathach YowYan's Avatar
    Status
    YowYan is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    11,608
    Location
    At the Organization, decapitating Rimuto
    Sun Gazing, Peripheral Blazing
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Micho22 View Post
    It shoud be forbidden
    Do you already forget what happened in the school so many children where killed and why because it is legit in the usa that every psychopath can own a gun
    psychotic drugs killed people. Not guns.
     
         

  19. #79
    The Observer Algalon's Avatar
    Status
    Algalon is online now
    Gender
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,648
    Location
    The Cosmos
    See your world through my
    eyes: A universe so vast as to
    be immeasurable -
    incomprehensible even to your
    greatest minds.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    answer honestly: why most of the countries around the world (countries in europe, japan, ...) have about 1% (or whatever, way less than the us anyway ...) of the vistims that the us has?
    a) because they have gun control
    b) because americans are stupid enough to just go out one day and shoot ppl around them, well stupider compared to ppl in the other countries i mentioned ...

    i personally believe its a but i dont know about you guys, however its got to be one or the other

    PS: yes yes, the democratic countries in Europe (some even more democratic than the US) are living proof that gun control by the state equals tyranny
     
         

  20. #80
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,372
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Are you for gun control? Why or Why not?

    Honestly, I don't know why I bother, anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Algalon View Post
    answer honestly: why most of the countries around the world (countries in europe, japan, ...) have about 1% (or whatever, way less than the us anyway ...) of the vistims that the us has?
    Depends upon how you classify "victim" (of firearm violence).

    Classic anti-2nd amendment lobbies like to quote the firearm related death statistic (about 30,000 annually - slightly lower than the average number of motor-vehicle related deaths) and throw it around as if this is how many people are shooting each other.

    The truth is a little less glamorous. For the past four years, the annual firearm -homicide- in the U.S. has been under 10,000 individuals. The other 20,000 are suicides.

    Now, that sounds like "a lot" of people - and it is. However, the U.S. also has a population of over 380,000,000. Per capita - our homicides are only marginally larger than those of most European nations. Which means that the relative percentage of people who manage to kill another person is not that much greater here than it is in many other parts of the world.

    But there is, however, something of a "secret:" http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenf...united-states/

    To quote:

    "Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

    You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned."


    Of course, how are these reported in those nations?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/wo...anted=all&_r=0

    Events like these are not documented the same in Europe as they are in the U.S. These are not "firearm homicides" but "casualties of terrorism."

    Which is not an inaccurate term - it's just that they are excluded from the statistics people are most frequently exposed to and concerned about.

    Which highlights a cultural difference between the U.S. and many European nations: Politically motivated violence is, ironically enough, far more common in Europe. Europe is the scene of church denominations literally at war with each other (something Americans cannot conceive - our "denominational warfare" is changing our hymnal around to not include any songs the baptists are singing). Individuals committing violent acts often assign them to some political cause or another (and there's no shortage of opinionated groups to affiliate with).

    Which is why they get reported as being part of domestic terrorism.

    Another example: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/world/...ce-solo-terror

    This is nothing new in Europe with its much longer and more fragmented history and deeper-running grudges (that make the south vs north rivalries in the U.S. look like a civil discussion).

    a) because they have gun control
    b) because americans are stupid enough to just go out one day and shoot ppl around them, well stupider compared to ppl in the other countries i mentioned ...

    i personally believe its a but i dont know about you guys, however its got to be one or the other

    PS: yes yes, the democratic countries in Europe (some even more democratic than the US) are living proof that gun control by the state equals tyranny
    You know... 33,000 people died this year because you wanted to drive yourself 3 miles to work.

    If people would just use public transport and get off this selfish high-horse of "I deserve a motor vehicle to drive" - perhaps we would have fewer deaths.

    Or - and here's a fun one... http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

    "(Alcohol Mortality 2009) "In 2009, a total of 24,518 persons died of alcohol-induced causes in the United States (Tables 10, 12, and 13). This category includes deaths from dependent and nondependent use of alcohol, and also includes accidental poisoning by alcohol. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use, as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome (for a list of alcohol-induced causes, see ‘‘Technical Notes’’)."

    Alcohol is single-handedly responsible for more deaths (from overdose, alone) than firearm suicide.

    And, as the note so kindly states... that doesn't include "induced" deaths (drunk behavior causing people to get killed or FAS).

    Which is why I sneer with soul-crushing contempt at the way our society idolizes drinking and alcohol consumption. It's one thing to use it in moderation - but it's obviously not being used in moderation.

    And, yet, 'guns are the problem.'

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_821900.html

    .... I cannot believe creatures supposedly sharing substantial portions of my genetic code worship a substance responsible for killing them by the millions each year.

    It is unfortunate that there is not a bath strong enough to purge my blood line of this species' failure.
     
         

Posting Permissions

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