Gun Control - Page 20

Warborn · 2012-08-18, 10:36 PM

I am in love with the zero-effort shitposting you one-sentence-wonders are so capable of.

Suntzu · 2012-08-18, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I am in love with the zero-effort shitposting you one-sentence-wonders are so capable of.

Baneblade · 2012-08-18, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I am in love with the zero-effort shitposting you one-sentence-wonders are so capable of.

Why waste time making people read a novel, when I can get my point across with much less?

At least Figment put some effort into this subject, all you've done is make claims that I can't find any evidence to support and ad hominem everyone to death.

Figment · 2012-08-19, 03:28 AM

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-.../10518-eng.htm

Interesting reading about Canadian policy effectiveness comparison.

This one in particular is very lovely. Restricted gun policies must be awful. I mean, just look at how bad the UK scores, low scores is bad right? RIGHT?! D:

And about most guns coming from the US in Canada. Manufacturingwise certainly. Have found evidence of it being the case, but also a (US gun supporter) claim that the study was biased based on sources not being verifiable and claiming many of the guns were stolen or leaked from Canadian government stockpiles.

http://www.examiner.com/article/unit...egal-gun-trade

Neurotoxin · 2012-08-19, 02:41 PM

Sounds like Canadians need to set up a border fence to keep them damn violent Americans out. Internal corruption is their own problem, though.

Traak · 2012-09-10, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by bigcracker

Gun control in the united states, Is it really necessary to own a AR-15 with a 70 round drum mag?I myself love guns, I love to go out shooting but isn't it enough seeing so many people get killed in places they shouldn't be. People are getting killed in schools,Colleges and now movie theaters. So is it time to start restricting the firearms that are available to us? To start putting in longer waiting periods and a mandatory license to use?

While we're on the subject of needs, do you NEED that 60" TV when you're on welfare? Nope.

Do you need to play online games? Do you need most of what is in your life?

Self defense, not only on a personal level, but against a tyrannical government was exactly what the 2nd Amendment was put in place for. And you can't defend very well against a tyrannical government with a single-shot musket, or a 6-round revolver.

A government that knows it faces a well-armed, as in armed with modern high-capacity weapons, populace will be less tempted to try to herd them into camps if they don't agree with it. And that means foreign governments, by the way.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II.

Life isn't about what we need, or socialism would have worked just dandy in Russia. But it failed.

You don't need most of what is in your life. But a fundamental human right is self defense. It isn't "granted" by men. It is fundamentally entrenched in nature and in mankind. You thinking that you don't like guns, or someone died once from one somewhere, and that makes it so guns should be taken away from everyone, or you or some panel of self-proclaimed omniscientists have deigned to limit the ability of the weapons?

Someone doing wrong isn't your excuse to steal someone else's human rights. However, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and many like them would heartily agree that people should be disarmed completely.

I know that the true intentions are to disarm people and make them helpless. But people don't want to be disarmed and helpless. I delight to point out that Jesus Christ himself counseled his disciples to bring assault-class weapons to the garden of Gethsamane. Not sharpened forks. Not pocket knives. Not fists. And in their willingness to defend themselves, the apostles escaped, every one of them alive. Why didn't Jesus just send a mass of cute, pink fluffy bunnies to defend them?

Because self-defense is not only a right. It's a responsibility.

It reminds me of this woman who was kayaking around Lake Michigan. She was letting everyone know on the internet where she was. Some guy followed her progress, went out there, found her an raped her. She cowered in an outhouse, but still got raped when he broke in.

Whose responsibility was it to protect her? Obama's? The National Guard? No. It's hers. She could have acquired and legally carried the means for self-defense, and she didn't.

People have the right AND RESPONSIBILITY to self-defense, by whatever means they choose. However, if you are rapist and/or a pedophile, I am not surprised that you disagree with that.

Vecha · 2012-09-10, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

It reminds me of this woman who was kayaking around Lake Michigan. She was letting everyone know on the internet where she was. Some guy followed her progress, went out there, found her an raped her. She cowered in an outhouse, but still got raped when he broke in.

Whose responsibility was it to protect her? Obama's? The National Guard? No. It's hers. She could have acquired and legally carried the means for self-defense, and she didn't.

People have the right AND RESPONSIBILITY to self-defense, by whatever means they choose. However, if you are rapist and/or a pedophile, I am not surprised that you disagree with that.

I was agreeing with you until you went on a victim-blaming tirade.

Also, at the end of your "story" are you trying to imply that anyone who calls you out on your BS to be a rapist themselves?

I would laugh if it wasn't so fucked up.

BTW, I am for Gun rights. Agree with you that we should be able to defend ourselves against others, our state, and against the possibility of invasion.

But you aren't going to persuade those who want more gun control by claiming that if all rapees carried guns they wouldn't get raped(Yes, you didn't "say" that...but you are implying it. Heavily).

Baneblade · 2012-09-10, 11:22 PM

But isn't that pretty much the counterpoint to gun control? That things like that can be resolved in a more satisfactory way than calling the police to file a report?

Traak · 2012-09-11, 01:44 AM

What I am stating is that it is incumbent upon the individual to defend themselves, because no matter how many other well-meaning hirelings there are to help out, they can't be omnipresent.

However, wherever you are, you are always present. And who is more interested, motivated, or able to help you right at the moment of danger? Usually, the attacker is the closest other person, and he/she/it is not at all interested in your well-being. However, it is fairly likely that the attacker is interested in it's own well-being, and very, very often, a handgun has been recorded as sending the assailant or assailants packing without a shot being fired.

What the non-insane can see is that doing all that you can to defend yourself greatly puts the odds of you surviving unscathed in your favor.

And I don't advocate stalking around hoping to find an excuse to wave a gun at someone. I advocate being where you belong, and doing your own business. Self-defense is self-defense, not "go looking for a fight and then shoot someone when he kicks your butt".

This is part of what I think the perception is with the Trayvon Martin case. Chasing someone down, getting in an altercation, then shooting the guy when he was getting his head pounded into the curb? That was an amazingly easy encounter to avoid.

I believe in doing my own thing, keeping my hands to myself, and being respectful to others. I don't even gawk at other guys' girls when I walk by a couple. The bible says that in domestic situations the husband is the head of the wife If she was so desperate for me to look at her, she would have come out alone.

Peace is easy to come buy, if you deal with people in the real world with respect. There's also good sense, formerly known as "common". And failing all of the above, there is self defense. Someone being ignorant of local situations enough to wander where it would be smarter to avoid doesn't give anyone a right to assault them.

It also doesn't take away from everyone's natural and intrinsic right to self defense.

Vecha · 2012-09-11, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

. Someone being ignorant of local situations enough to wander where it would be smarter to avoid doesn't give anyone a right to assault them.

It also doesn't take away from everyone's natural and intrinsic right to self defense.

Now, this I can agree with.

However, My position is that a Gun won't necessarily help you in every horrible situation. With that said...it doesn't mean we should start to ban certain guns.

My stance is we should make sure to keep guns out of the hands of anyone with a violent criminal past or who has a severe mental illness.

Shouldn't punish the innocent because of some whack jobs.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

But isn't that pretty much the counterpoint to gun control? That things like that can be resolved in a more satisfactory way than calling the police to file a report?

Well...yeah...if you take the extreme opposite to gun control.

I like my spot in the middle.

IE, Having guns in your possession isn't going to solve all issues; taking certain guns away from "everyone"(I use that term loosely...as criminals will still get them) is not going to solve everything.

Figment · 2012-09-11, 09:45 AM

Yeah right. Keeping them out of hands of criminals by not selling them to them. Ha-ha. Hear them laugh. That's like those people that think not selling booze to those below 18 year old means that no 13 year old will ever drink alcohol on a regular basis.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

Read that.

"Oh no, we're all responsible people!"

Hahahahaha. Hah. Yeah. *sniffle*

Making sure only "innocents" get hold of guns! In the USA! Hah! Good one!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129253&page=1

And when there's insufficient checking and punishment for violations, then the amount of regulation is to blame? xD Of course! Because if 120 dealers dealers (quite small portion indeed) are apparently responsible for 57% of crime guns, rather then that there's something else going on. Something called profits, unsuited employer/employees that should have their license revoked and general negligence.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

I'm sure these kind of statistics are all indications of "gang crime" though.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/l...n-inmates-1997

Let's make sure that all them innocents have guns, since you're so capable of preventing guns from falling in the wrong hands after they left the shop... Well over half 35.4% (family and friends) + 15% (retail) + 9.1% (theft/burglary) + 3.4% (borrowed or gift) and then probably some in the "other" category, is acquired from sources that acquired them legally. Then there's second hand stuff: 8.7% (pawn shop) and two times 1.7% (flee market and gun shows), which you can also consider a once-upon-a-time legally sold gun. So that's 75.1% that was originally from a legal source, sold to innocent people.

Hoo-hah! You became so safe from being sold guns because you're all such responsible gun owners!

Basically what stats like these say, is that you can't trust 'innocents' to keep the guns out of the hands of others who do have bad intentions or shouldn't be allowed to have them for other reasons.

As for the remainder, who knows how many of those were originally from a legal source before they entered the black market ("reported missing" after sold to a licensed dealer), were stolen from innocents or otherwise. But that drug dealers are an equal to licensed retail shops as a source for crime guns should indicate more than enough. Does it matter that the majority of guns aren't used by offenders if all guns create a security risk?

Sorry, but I don't believe in fairy tales like some of you do. :P

Vecha · 2012-09-11, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah right. Keeping them out of hands of criminals by not selling them to them. Ha-ha. Hear them laugh. That's like those people that think not selling booze to those below 18 year old means that no 13 year old will ever drink alcohol on a regular basis.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

Read that.

"Oh no, we're all responsible people!"

Hahahahaha. Hah. Yeah. *sniffle*

Making sure only "innocents" get hold of guns! In the USA! Hah! Good one!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129253&page=1

And when there's insufficient checking and punishment for violations, then the amount of regulation is to blame? xD Of course! Because if 120 dealers dealers (quite small portion indeed) are apparently responsible for 57% of crime guns, rather then that there's something else going on. Something called profits, unsuited employer/employees that should have their license revoked and general negligence.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

I'm sure these kind of statistics are all indications of "gang crime" though.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/l...n-inmates-1997

Let's make sure that all them innocents have guns, since you're so capable of preventing guns from falling in the wrong hands after they left the shop... Well over half 35.4% (family and friends) + 15% (retail) + 9.1% (theft/burglary) + 3.4% (borrowed or gift) and then probably some in the "other" category, is acquired from sources that acquired them legally. Then there's second hand stuff: 8.7% (pawn shop) and two times 1.7% (flee market and gun shows), which you can also consider a once-upon-a-time legally sold gun. So that's 75.1% that was originally from a legal source, sold to innocent people.

Hoo-hah! You became so safe from being sold guns because you're all such responsible gun owners!

Basically what stats like these say, is that you can't trust 'innocents' to keep the guns out of the hands of others who do have bad intentions or shouldn't be allowed to have them for other reasons.

As for the remainder, who knows how many of those were originally from a legal source before they entered the black market ("reported missing" after sold to a licensed dealer), were stolen from innocents or otherwise. But that drug dealers are an equal to licensed retail shops as a source for crime guns should indicate more than enough. Does it matter that the majority of guns aren't used by offenders if all guns create a security risk?

Sorry, but I don't believe in fairy tales like some of you do. :P

I'm not one of those who "blame" regulation.

My earlier comment stated that I am for strengthening the way we keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

At this point, with thousands upon thousands of guns out there, taking away the legal route of obtaining the gun will not magically make gun crime go away..or magically make it to where criminals can't get guns.

I don't believe in fairy tales like you

Figment · 2012-09-11, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Vecha

I'm not one of those who "blame" regulation.

My earlier comment stated that I am for strengthening the way we keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

At this point, with thousands upon thousands of guns out there, taking away the legal route of obtaining the gun will not magically make gun crime go away..or magically make it to where criminals can't get guns.

I don't believe in fairy tales like you

If you want to keep it out of the hands of criminals, then you're clearly pro-gun ban.

Stop selling: stops leaking to the black-market by illegal transactions and stops selling guns to "innocents" who leak the guns to criminals (or use them themselves for criminal activities). Also stops most of the other sources.

Take away the ones people already have. This stops theft/burglary and the huge stats of gifts, family and friends sources.

Strictly regulate who CAN still use it because they absolutely need it.

Ta-da.

Europe.

The only thing is, you need people to accept they're not going to get invaded by zombies, the USSR (it's really gone people and not even Putin can bring it back!), Mexico, nor the UN (apparently...) and it's still not useful against own governments since your own forces by your own claims wouldn't fight you if you'd rise up.

No fairy tales here. Just bad excuses there.

Vecha · 2012-09-11, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

If you want to keep it out of the hands of criminals, then you're clearly pro-gun ban.

Stop selling: stops leaking to the black-market by illegal transactions and stops selling guns to "innocents" who leak the guns to criminals (or use them themselves for criminal activities). Also stops most of the other sources.

Take away the ones people already have. This stops theft/burglary and the huge stats of gifts, family and friends sources.

Strictly regulate who CAN still use it because they absolutely need it.

No, I'm not for a gun ban. If you read my comments, clearly, then you would see that I'm not a gun zealot, nor am I a gun-ban nut.

I am not for the government to, somehow, go into everyone's homes and take their guns.

How much will that cost?

That is one extreme position.

Stricter laws that punish those who sell to criminals, sure, I'll be for that.

Creating a branch of the government(or I suppose charging the ATF to take care of it) in going into millions of homes...and taking their guns. No.

Unless you want to create a law that makes it illegal to have a gun in your home...and expect people to just give them up.

" and it's still not useful against own governments since your own forces by your own claims wouldn't fight you if you'd rise up."

When did I make any such claims?

Stop bunching me up with others who have argued with you.

Also,

Here is a nice little article.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...nd-irrelevant/

Traak · 2012-09-12, 01:00 AM

Making something illegal prevents criminals from doing it? No one really thinks that, do they?