Gun Control - Page 37

Helwyr · 2013-03-04, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

No common ground? I disagree. The welfare and safety of people seems to be the main concern of both "sides".

You'd have to explain what you mean by the "welfare and safety of the people." If you seek that via proactive intervention by the state/government, then no it isn't shared. The collectivist coercive pursuit of welfare for all is apt to result in the slavery of all. And likewise the pursuit of "safety" result instead in tyranny.

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

[...]I also don't believe that any police officer or public official should ever be allowed to act out against the people they serve. That however isn't something which can be fixed by use of firearms or the threat to use said firearms.

"Allowed", when you say that I feel like you imbue it with mystical properties, that grant it significant meaning and power. If rule breaking and initiated violence can't be fixed by the use of firearms why "allow" the police, military, or any other agents of government to have them?

My last link of the speech made by a Chinese immigrant to the US, responded directly to what you're saying here. Here it is again in case you missed it

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Nor is that what the debate and consequently the gun restriction should be about. It's not in anyone's power to stop people from killing other people, what can be done is minimize what kind of killing takes place and to which degree.

What kind of killing are you trying to minimize? Not the type that accounts for the most deaths it seems, or else we'd be talking about automobiles or medical errors. Or if restricting ourselves to "weapons", we'd be talking about disarming governments not regular civilians. I believe the number of murders by governments since the beginning of the 20th century is estimated to be in the 280 Million range (this doesn't include combatants in wars).

If you're really concerned about saving lives and stopping violence, maybe that's where we can find common ground. In advocating the curtailing of government power to wage wars on other people, tyranny on their own people, and death and destruction on a scale no mentally ill lone gunman could could conjure up in the sickest of dreams.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-04, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

You'd have to explain what you mean by the "welfare and safety of the people." If you seek that via proactive intervention by the state/government, then no it isn't shared. The collectivist coercive pursuit of welfare for all is apt to result in the slavery of all. And likewise the pursuit of "safety" result instead in tyranny.

"Allowed", when you say that I feel like you imbue it with mystical properties, that grant it significant meaning and power. If rule breaking and initiated violence can't be fixed by the use of firearms why "allow" the police, military, or any other agents of government to have them?

What kind of killing are you trying to minimize? Not the type that accounts for the most deaths it seems, or else we'd be talking about automobiles or medical errors. Or if restricting ourselves to "weapons", we'd be talking about disarming governments not regular civilians. I believe the number of murders by governments since the beginning of the 20th century is estimated to be in the 280 Million range (this doesn't include combatants in wars).

If you're really concerned about saving lives and stopping violence, maybe that's where we can find common ground. In advocating the curtailing of government power to wage wars on other people, tyranny on their own people, and death and destruction on a scale no mentally ill lone gunman could could conjure up in the sickest of dreams.

There is nothing to explain as the words explain themselves. Should police officers not intervene when there is crime taking place? Should the populace simply fend for itself? So universal health care equals slavery now?
Depends on who's safety is being sought. You're right, the pursuit of safety can lead to a country doing some nasty things. Just take the patriot act as an example. Then again it can also lead individuals or groups of individuals into doing some bad, bad things. Kinda makes me wonder about the whole legality about "Who ever has the guns has the rights" argument the man in the video made... What about the people whom the people with guns don't like? Who's going to look out for their rights? Should every single person in the USA have a firearm to protect themselves from others who have firearms, otherwise by his logic they wouldn't be able to defend their rights?

Legal not magical. It's called the separation of powers... One of the key parts of the US constitution that was created by the founding fathers.
No matter how much some might wish it to be so, law abiding citizens with firearms do not actively prevent or stop crime on a national scale.
The police are not there to fix social issues in a country. The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. The active use of firearms isn't required for police officers to go on about their duties. They are there for when the situation calls for it, obviously. Police officers have also recieved training to handle situations where it might be required, civilians have not. One should regard the american police's use of firearms on their person, not on others, as a symptom of your society's problems as that is not the norm in every western country.
The role of the military also is not to fix social issues, nor issues of internal security unless a martial law is in use. So I fail to see what they have to do with anything in this regard.

Why, homicides caused by firearms and general gun violence of course. I would have thought that to be blatantly obvious. I don't really care if it's the number one reason for deaths or not, doesn't really factor into it.
Besides we're already doing what we can about limiting deaths caused by natural causes... So short of putting a bullet between the Grim Reaper's eyes I don't see what we can do about the number one cause of deaths in the world.
Democide, that's what you're referring to and it's 262 million, as I believe you're also referring to R. J. Rummel's estimates. What does worldwide democide have to do with the USA? Are you making the assumption that you will one day be faced with your own genocidal tyrant on the same level as Stalin/Mao/Hitler? That's just another fallacy since it's based on prerequisites that are not present in the USA.

I see no evidence of that taking place on any such scale here in the west, not since the reunion of west and east Berlin... Or to be more precise since the end of WWII. I dismiss your claims as being based on nothing but hypothetical worst case scenarios that have little to no grounds in reality.
You posted a video about a man who was oppressed in China, well last time I checked the USA and China are not run in the same manner. When the USA becomes a single-party state then he will have some credibility.
Living under the assumption that one country can and will change into another worse example at the drop of a hat is ludicrous. The people made the government so the people damn better exercise their political power instead of just barricading themselves for the possibility that their country might one day become a tyranny. A country is a good as its people demand it to be.

Figment · 2013-03-04, 07:29 PM

Ugh, dogmatic people.

So narrowminded.

"Allowed", when you say that I feel like you imbue it with mystical properties, that grant it significant meaning and power. If rule breaking and initiated violence can't be fixed by the use of firearms why "allow" the police, military, or any other agents of government to have them?

Most the time what we in Europe have and the policy our police use, is a weapon stick, pepper spray/maze, riotshields, watercannons and perhaps a tazer. Guns are considered a last, last, last, last resort. Judicial enquiries are made for every case of police violence and a lot of police feel extremely restricted. (In fact, certain namecalling of officers is allowed). Armed force is NOT ALLOWED most the time and lethal force only in a life threatening situation.

You keep coming from an ultimate dystopia angle Helwyr, and keep trying to tell us we're communist police state supporters. Stop thinking so insanely black and white and realise we have the populace in charge in our countries due to representative elections, whereas YOU DO NOT have a representative government, but an electoral college that's extremely sensative to rigging.

Also. Killings, ie. homicides. Not accidents. Cars are not used as a primary means of intentional homicide. The percentage of intentional murders vs accidents is completely different. What fraction of car related deaths are intentional? What fraction with guns?

Cars are certainly not designed with that purpose. In fact, what we have is ever stricter car design legislation that prevents or mitigates injuries to both occupants and the person hit during an accident. And they are amended yearly. Don't tell me you wern't aware of seatbelts? Or are they hindering your freedom?

Besides, car mobility is a practical solution to a daily necessity.

Guns and especially rifles are not a practical solution, nor a daily necessity.

They're not comparable. Again, drop the retarded lines of argumentation. "But they do it too" is such a childish form of argumentation you'll only ever convince three years old with it.

When we're looking at disarming governments, in effect that's what's been happening over the years in Europe. Compare to the arms races prior to both world wars and the size of standing armies per person, then we've shrunk the armed forces tremendously. The Netherlands have about 70K volunteer (professional) enlisted total, including administration and maintenance.

We got 17 million people living here. That's 4 soldiers per 1.000 citizens - again, including non-combattant staff.

Also interesting, see that tank collumn? It got stopped by an unarmed Chinese civilian. The tank drivers did not want to kill him. In fact, the Chinese government could have lost the support of parts of the army there and then, had they known what happened.

Consider that the media in China are not free. Consider that there's actual threats of life for not following orders. Consider that's a country completely indoctrinated. The soldiers had been informed they would face armed and dangerous counter revolutionary rebels and that their families were at risk if they did not follow orders.

Consider also that guns would not have helped against those tanks. In fact, it'd have been used as an excuse by the Chinese government to slaughter those people and likely the soldiers manning those tanks would not have been so hesitant to try and go around that unarmed chinese civilian, had it been an ARMED chinese civilian: it'd been a legitimate threat.

Look at what happened in 1989 instead across Eastern Europe and Russia.

Hey. How about that, you ignore that example of let's see, VIRTUALLY ALL SOVIET UNION STATES SUCCOMBING TO PEACEFUL CIVILIAN PROTEST, because the army did not interfere, despite being state controlled to the extreme and the Stasi being the largest intelligence agency of all.

The Wall fell, without the populace owning guns.

Why then did China fail to free itself? Likely because the timing was off and their government acted "in time and adequately" (from a party perspective), while media could not broadcast what was happening elsewhere in China. It would today be a lot harder for China to do the same thing again. In fact, peaceful civil protest is slowly growing once more. These things take time and timing. Civil war can just as easily lead to the destruction of their chances of freedom, not to mention the loss of life. Look at Syria. And unfortunately, nobody knows what kind of repressive regime could come out on top there. That includes certain rebel groups.

THrONeBeaST · 2013-03-04, 08:19 PM

People need to start chilling in this thread or will just lock it...tired of all the personal attacks on eachother.

Helwyr · 2013-03-04, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

[...]You're right, the pursuit of safety can lead to a country doing some nasty things. Just take the patriot act as an example.[...]

Well I'll quote the one thing you said in all that we can agree on. The Patriot Act is a bad thing.

Helwyr · 2013-03-04, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by THrONeBeaST

People need to start chilling in this thread or will just lock it...tired of all the personal attacks on eachother.

Chip and I have already called for it to be locked, there's little constructive coming out of the discussion. Aside from Chip and I, there's only really Figment posting at this point, and I'd guess a lot of people have already put him on ignore as I have done.

ChipMHazard · 2013-03-04, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Well I'll quote the one thing you said in all that we can agree on. The Patriot Act is a bad thing.

Hehe good man, it is a no brainer of course

It does lend your argument some credibility, along with cases like the Dorner one.

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Chip and I have already called for it to be locked, there's little constructive coming out of the discussion.

Well only if we're unable to have a civil discussion without resorting to ad hominems, well from this point on at least

Which I agree doesn't seem all that likely at this point. I do think that having a discussion end this way would be sad, kinda makes me feel like I've failed.

Figment · 2013-03-05, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

Chip and I have already called for it to be locked, there's little constructive coming out of the discussion. Aside from Chip and I, there's only really Figment posting at this point, and I'd guess a lot of people have already put him on ignore as I have done.

It is interesting to see someone who said himself not to be interested in debate and setting the tone immediately claim there is never something constructive coming out of it.

As for having been put on ignore, eh. If you can't handle an argument maturely and come with whiny, childish arguments and constant strawmen and troll remarks, expect to be called out on it. Especially if a certain person goes out of his way to state no argument shall ever be listened to, because of his personal prejudice. Sorry, but if anyone should be put on ignore, it would be Helwyr. Nothing but ad hominems and character attacks on opposing parties since he started posting and any argument made is either ignored completely or waved away followed by some propagandic style opinion. Indeed, that's not constructive and it's very unlikely to anything coming out of that sort of debate attitude.

If one can't handle an argument being called childish or stupid when it is, based on X or Y, nor being able to handle being called dogmatic or narrowminded then it is not surprising they're not expecting a proper debate, is it? (Come on, the tunnelvision and prejudice is obvious, while the lack of taking the opposition serious and instead replacing the actual opposition with strawmen to attack is simply not a very courteous or respectful thing to do, now is it?).

I have not seen anyone even look at the transcriptions - the direct quotes of representatives from the southern states regarding suppression of slaves. Een if everything points at it. That the first version contained an obligation for white men to bare arms, that the word state was used after country had been scrapped and the outspoken fears of the concept of slaves being freed and the need to suppress insurgencies by slaves, all point to the same thing. You can go "wuh?", but if you actually read the original and amended versions, you see the slave holder influence. It's not the primary cause of it to be written no, but for the south it was an extremely important amendment to maintain their basis of economy.

To look at the men who held slaves themselves as somehow morally superior or flawless as some in this thread have done is in my eyes an utterly insane thing to do. The "this and this guy from the 18th century meant this with regards to assault rifles and any and all other handguns" is an utterly ludicrous appeal to authority position to take. Yet every time the 2nd amendment is mentioned, this appeal to authority is made. Especially given the context of the time in comparison with even a decade later, let alone today, the exact phrasing and changes to the phrasing and the complete lack of understanding that disagreeing people compromised on it. Some people are trying too hard to have it interpreted it as some people want certain Biblical scripture interpreted: as they (re)defined it. (Or have been taught to define it).

The pink goggles of constitutionalism, patriotism, nationalism and other dogmatic principles without any sense of how the rest of the world functions is simply sad.

To be accused of collectivist state tyranny support as an European liberal (small, sovereign government and free market) is simply insulting. To think that one can have freedoms without having to constantly do your own protecting is possible is inconceivable to some people surrounded by guns all their lives. This too is sad, especially when those people start claiming your life is so much worse.

Despite the higher living standards in Europe. Despite the lower crime rates. Despite the higher happiness scores. Despite having more freedoms. Despite having less problems in general. All that isn't important to these people, because they know they are extremely right and local media to be more trustworthy than maintstream media. I mean, when people start distrusting some of the mainstream media and then distrust everything and go for any alternative interpretation is when I'd say they dropped the ball. Being critical of your media is fine, but to ignore any source that doesn't support your cause (while claiming to read it, which is pointless if you only give them credit when it suits you) doesn't actually give me the impression of being openminded.

Now since I look up information myself and base my opinion on results and realism, I find it hard to accept that one would ignore statistics or claim we don't know anything about our own countries.

belch · 2013-03-05, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

...
As for having been put on ignore, eh. If you can't handle an argument maturely and come with whiny, childish arguments and constant strawmen and troll remarks, expect to be called out on it.

Oh, the irony...the angst...

SolLeks · 2013-03-05, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Accuser

Without looking it up, just how much training do you think local police get in firearms use?

funny story about this. I was at a local range and started talking with one of the guys at a different lane (I do this a lot because its fun to look at other peoples guns and trade a few rounds).

The guy I was talking to ended up being an off duty cop, and he was very proud of this pistol he had that was only sold to police. He let me shoot a magazine through it and I got better groupings than him...

Now, I don't go out shooting nearly as much as I would like, less than once a week... and he is a cop who carries a gun every day for his job...

that was not the only time I have out shot a cop at the range.

MrBloodworth · 2013-03-05, 03:32 PM

A completely Armed citizenry is the antithesis of why man created a civil society. Arming everyone is simply a gun festishist dream where they are all Bruce Willis.

You are not Bruce Willis. Every single society that has banned assault and other guns has been better off for it.

A society where you have to fear that your fellow man is armed to the teeth is not something we should aspire to.

This toss back to the "Founding fathers". If just one of the founding fathers was alive today and glimpsed what our society is, and what some on the right want it to be, they would become a pile of gibberish and pee.

They are old, Dead and from a completely different time. Its retarded to bring them up, the constitution, by its very authorship is a flawed document. If you believe it is perfect, you are not living in reality.

You can buy an Ar-15 at god dam Wallmart, and background checks, IF EVEN done are by law to be destroyed within 24 hours. But somehow, proliferation isn't the problem, unarmed teachers are? The fuck?

Originally Posted by Foe

Banning assult weapons will solve nothing. They will be bought illegally and then what?

ALL GUNS ARE INITIALLY BOUGHT LEGALLY.

MrVicchio · 2013-03-06, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

A completely Armed citizenry is the antithesis of why man created a civil society. Arming everyone is simply a gun festishist dream where they are all Bruce Willis.

You are not Bruce Willis. Every single society that has banned assault and other guns has been better off for it.

A society where you have to fear that your fellow man is armed to the teeth is not something we should aspire to.

This toss back to the "Founding fathers". If just one of the founding fathers was alive today and glimpsed what our society is, and what some on the right want it to be, they would become a pile of gibberish and pee.

They are old, Dead and from a completely different time. Its retarded to bring them up, the constitution, by its very authorship is a flawed document. If you believe it is perfect, you are not living in reality.

You can buy an Ar-15 at god dam Wallmart, and background checks, IF EVEN done are by law to be destroyed within 24 hours. But somehow, proliferation isn't the problem, unarmed teachers are? The fuck?

ALL GUNS ARE INITIALLY BOUGHT LEGALLY.

An armed society is a polite society.
The cities in America with the lowest violent crimes are those with the most legal gun ownership, the places with the most stringent gun control laws, the most violent. Sorry Blood, but you believe a fallacy.

Figment · 2013-03-06, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

An armed society is a polite society.
The cities in America with the lowest violent crimes are those with the most legal gun ownership, the places with the most stringent gun control laws, the most violent. Sorry Blood, but you believe a fallacy.

Because the Wild West had the most civilized and polite people in the world?

Good luck selling that one.

Also, don't know where you get your statistics, but from what I've come across on all statistics, that's simply an outright lie. Please provide evidence to back up that claim, because I've already shown statistics where it's the exact opposite.

There are a very few exceptions, but then those are in areas with extremely low populations and very low population densities.

MrBloodworth · 2013-03-06, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

An armed society is a polite society.
The cities in America with the lowest violent crimes are those with the most legal gun ownership, the places with the most stringent gun control laws, the most violent. Sorry Blood, but you believe a fallacy.

Negative brother, negative. That's a myth that facts do not support.

SolLeks · 2013-03-06, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Because the Wild West had the most civilized and polite people in the world?

Good luck selling that one.

Also, don't know where you get your statistics, but from what I've come across on all statistics, that's simply an outright lie. Please provide evidence to back up that claim, because I've already shown statistics where it's the exact opposite.

There are a very few exceptions, but then those are in areas with extremely low populations and very low population densities.

do you mean the real wild west or the one from the movies?

did you know, there was only one incident of the old 'shoot out at noon in the streets' thing?

do you know, that the wild west had very strict gun laws, often you had to turn in your guns at the local police department until you left town.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18487...-are-true.html

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Negative brother, negative. That's a myth that facts do not support.

Lets see the facts that do not support it sir.

funny thing, iirc, England's gun crime may be down but their violent crime is up.

also, after the first assault weapon ban, there was no noticeable change in gun crime as the so called 'assault weapons' are not used in crime that often.

here is a few good things you can read to learn a bit more about the subject before spreading lies and feelings.
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...6_1_screen.pdf
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/AWBGuide.pdf