Gun Control - Page 39

belch · 2013-03-08, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

What ended the Yugoslav civil war? Military and international intervention and pressure on a much bigger scale than civilians resisting.

I love it. I'm on ignore and he answers me. Sweet.

Most of what you said is, as usual, speculation, excuses and conjecture. Pont blank, Europe failed. GRANDLY. Huge fucking failure. That's what happened. And the precious Dutch? Yeah, drink up with the Serbs, kiss ass with the enemy, all so you can save your own asses. A lot like your arguments...doesn't mean shit when the entire city is massacred.

Look, I've been around the block a few times Figgie. My experiences with combat extend beyond virtual warfare via Planetside and the World of Tanks (lawlz). I understand more than you could ever comprehend the complexities. But that does NOT excuse the roles of your countries "peacekeepers". And thusly, your misguided trust in your governments to quell any real threat.

You really need to stick to pie charts for TTK in PS2. In discussing real world warfare, your opinions are a joke.

Oh...and what ended the war?

US. America. So much for Fortress Europa and making war obsolete.

MrVicchio · 2013-03-08, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

None of your sources are Unbiased. They are ether prop sites for gun advocacy, funded in part by the NRA, or conservative thing tanks. Just facts is a Conservative "Facts" site.

Sad part is, you have to look outside the us for real analysis of countries with real regulation and its effects, because by law, thanks to the NRA, Gun related data can not be researched by any federal agency or used to shape policy, including the ATF. By law, background checks have to be destroyed in 24 hours, and gun shop owners are not required to keep a sales registry.

Actually all the law did was stop the CDC out of the mix, which the funding was re-instated in the 90's.

Also, did you know President Carter ordered a big "Gun Violence Study"?

Here's a little link for you folks that believe in gun control...
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf

Crator · 2013-03-08, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by belch

So, let me get this straight. Pointing out where Figment has reversed his earlier depictions of Europe as being some utopia of gun free happiness, and finally admitting that firearms are trafficked thru Europe in spite of heavy legislation...this now equates to an attack?

Ok Crator, go back and read where Figment doggedly attacked me, using actual slanderous terms, acted like a 5 year old that couldn't have his favorite toy...yet you think that I am attacking him?

No, I am laughing at his blatant flip-flopping of stances when it suits his argument. Rearranging pie charts and walls of text to fit his view. It's hilarious!

ETA: If I wanted to really dig into his hide, and since he brings up the Balkans, how about have him explain how well the UN Enclave at Srebrenica was held by the Dutch. Here's a hint...it wasn't.

belch, this thread is so large, I might have missed it. But still, why attack? Just counter the argument being made or don't say anything, is the way I see it. Half the stuff in here you guys are going back and forth on I don't know about, but curious to listen about it.

SolLeks · 2013-03-08, 10:49 AM

this is what it boils down for me.

1. When you have seconds to react, a cop is only minutes away. It is 100% impossible for a cop to prevent every crime, and according to the SCotUS (idk if that abrive is right lol) the police do not have to protect you. therefor your personal safety is your own responsibility. would you want to bring a knife to a gun fight?

2. Riots happen, Natural disasters happen, shit happens and the area you live in may become without rule of law. Look at the LA riots, these guys where sure happy they had semi auto AKs and shotguns then, and no one fucked with them.

and to show you just how bad it was, there is a lil video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=LJpzPPbNlMM

then we look a bit closer to today, hurricane Katrina.

to top that off, there are countless times, often that go un reported, that just pulling a weapon during a crime will stop it and the aggressor will flee, and that is without ever firing a shot.

then there is this - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

here we see that A, gun crime is going down B, people kill people with plenty of other things and C, 0.0255% of murders involve rifles, and that is the current target of the bans in the US. Even less of these rifles are the so called 'assault weapons' *Fyi, the term Assault weapon is made up by the media to mean every semi auto rifle that looks like and assault rifle. Assault rifles are burst / full auto and not the semi auto rifles civilians can easily own. You can own Assault rifles in america but you need to go through the ATF background checks, pay a $200 tax stamp. on top of that the cost of one of these weapons goes from $3,000 for a small mac 11 to $20,000+ for a light machine gun, an M16 full auto rifle currently costs $15,000 to $20,000 and there are no plans to target these*

Edit~

On a side note, I just thought I should show where my bias comes from.

This is my firearms collection, and none of them have hurt a sole (well, the ones from WW1 / 2 may have, but not since I got them)

Figment · 2013-03-08, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

belch, this thread is so large, I might have missed it.

Crator, Belch is so full of himself, he continuously makes up the arguments he wants to argue with.

When I said "there's less violent crime in Europe", where "Violent Crime" is a category of crime types, a grouping which includes murder, rape and violent assault, and "less" relates to the frequency of occurance, next to stating that in less cases the end result was murder (which is a fact), he went and mockingly tried to twist it in to meaning "having 'less violent' criminals that shoot people 'less dead' or 'stab people less hard' etc".

When I then explained he completely misunderstood and interpreted that sentence, he completely ignored it and kept going on his own train of thought, his own imaginary opponents and kept assigning more and more statements to people that never made them. With the furthering of nothing but mocking troll posts he then got surprised I got fed up with him to the point of putting him on ignore. Which apparently, he still can't handle (his ego has been hurt badly it seems).

Pretty much like what Helwyr did at least a couple times a few pages back btw, calling Chip and me "collectivists" something, which is utterly ridiculous. Not to mention Helwyr suggesting those against guns are per definition in favour of government abuse. I'm sorry, but people that constantly put words in other people's mouths are per definition not worth listening to. They won't know what or who they're argueing with since they're argueing with a strawman they even believe is real.

And they wonder why their paranoia gets called out and ridiculed.

Crator · 2013-03-08, 02:28 PM

@Figment That's pretty much how I remembered it. I just didn't want to go back through all the posts in this thread and verify cause as I stated, it's a really big thread.

Helwyr · 2013-03-08, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

This is my firearms collection, and none of them have hurt a soul (well, the ones from WW1 / 2 may have, but not since I got them)

I love how the cat has lined itself up alongside the rifles for the picture. Probably not a good idea on the cats part though Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Obama et al will be requiring all non government cats to be declawed and have their teeth pulled. Can't have people like you with assault cats.

Mietz · 2013-03-08, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

this is what it boils down for me.

1. When you have seconds to react, a cop is only minutes away. It is 100% impossible for a cop to prevent every crime, and according to the SCotUS (idk if that abrive is right lol) the police do not have to protect you. therefor your personal safety is your own responsibility. would you want to bring a knife to a gun fight?

Gun fight what?
If someone wants to kill you and is set on doing it (and not just intimidate) they will. It matters little if they will use an AK47, a knife or a grenade launcher.

The time it takes you to react, you are already dead/injured. I can stick you with a switchblade faster than you can draw your gun. With a gun its even better, I can shoot you from a distance before you know I'm even there and aiming.

Last I checked guns do not stop bullets fired at you or knives from penetrating your skin.

Your scenario is a romanticized fantasy of high-noon shootouts in the wild west or a full on raid scenario from Mad Max.

Guns do not enhance your personal safety, statistically people with guns aren't any more safe from (violent) crime than people without, especially if the criminals have guns of their own.

Guess what, -you- aren't better than the cop. You also don't have 100% chance of preventing every crime that happens to you. In fact, being untrained, you have a significantly lower chance of preventing it from the start.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

2. Riots happen, Natural disasters happen, shit happens and the area you live in may become without rule of law. Look at the LA riots, these guys where sure happy they had semi auto AKs and shotguns then, and no one fucked with them.

Vigilantism is in fact not the answer we discovered somewhere around 2000BC. I enjoy comic books too, but I don't want The Punisher running around dealing out his version of justice (even if only implied by his open carry).

The answer to "shit happens sometimes" isn't "guns" its "make shit happen less" (i.e. reduce the amount of time without law, response time of police, coverage of law enforcement, etc. pp). Guns do not solve your problem of riots. Less riots solve your problems with riots.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

to top that off, there are countless times, often that go un reported, that just pulling a weapon during a crime will stop it and the aggressor will flee, and that is without ever firing a shot.

If they are unreported and evidence is not present, its not verifiable and hence myth. If you have hard evidence (which afaik, after a curtly search online, doesn't exist) please do present it.

Yes, you can show me a few youtube videos of security footage, I've seen it, but unless I have a hard number comparing these incidents to failed attempts, that claim is completely meaningless in this discussion.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

here we see that A, gun crime is going down B, people kill people with plenty of other things and C, 0.0255% of murders involve rifles, and that is the current target of the bans in the US. Even less of these rifles are the so called 'assault weapons' *Fyi, the term Assault weapon is made up by the media to mean every semi auto rifle that looks like and assault rifle. Assault rifles are burst / full auto and not the semi auto rifles civilians can easily own. You can own Assault rifles in america but you need to go through the ATF background checks, pay a $200 tax stamp. on top of that the cost of one of these weapons goes from $3,000 for a small mac 11 to $20,000+ for a light machine gun, an M16 full auto rifle currently costs $15,000 to $20,000 and there are no plans to target these*

The amount of crime committed with guns or not is irrelevant. Laws are not made based on the amount of occurrence.
We will not legalize theft once it falls under the 1% margin in crime reports.
Similarly cost is also not an issue in making laws and assessing threats.
What is relevant is the potential of damage, which with guns and especially automatic weapons is quite high, far higher than than with white weaponry.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

Edit~

On a side note, I just thought I should show where my bias comes from.

This is my firearms collection, and none of them have hurt a sole (well, the ones from WW1 / 2 may have, but not since I got them)

I admire your collection.
I have my own collection of weapons consisting of Swords, Axes, knives, throwing knives/stars, batons etc. Some of them are even hand-made on request.

Personally, I have nothing at all against collecting weaponry, I admire craftsmanship and their design.

Nevertheless, all my weapons (with the exception of 2-3 knives) are blunt, because I see no point in having large sharp objects in my household. It adds nothing to their design or craftsmanship which is of importance to me.

I own an AK47 and M16 from military storage (the AK i got in Poland, the M16 in germany when the US forces were leaving). They are completely functional except that their barrels are filled in with lead and thats perfectly fine.
For the life of me, I don't know why someone needs the weapon to be functioning if they only collect them and never expect to use them.

This might come as a shock, but I am an active member of a shooting range as well. Nevertheless I do not own one single functioning gun (although I have a license) and all the guns I shoot are rented from the range.
If you want to shoot some guns here, just go to your nearest firing range, pick a rifle, including auto and semi-auto, and fire away (under supervision by at least one trained individual if you don't have a license).

I'm telling you all this because I don't want you to think I'm against collecting weapons or shooting guns. All of these activities can be performed, safely, with a minimum of danger to everyone, without ever owning a functioning firearm yourself or having one in your house.

MrVicchio · 2013-03-08, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Gun fight what?
If someone wants to kill you and is set on doing it (and not just intimidate) they will. It matters little if they will use an AK47, a knife or a grenade launcher.

The time it takes you to react, you are already dead/injured. I can stick you with a switchblade faster than you can draw your gun. With a gun its even better, I can shoot you from a distance before you know I'm even there and aiming.

Last I checked guns do not stop bullets fired at you or knives from penetrating your skin.

Your scenario is a romanticized fantasy of high-noon shootouts in the wild west or a full on raid scenario from Mad Max.

Translation: Be a victim, self defense of life, liberty and property isn't worth your time.

Helwyr · 2013-03-08, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Translation: Be a victim, self defense of life, liberty and property isn't worth your time.

I actually feel sad for people like that, they're essentially psychologically gelded... Heck if some "official" in a uniform came to their home and told them for the "greater good" some "authority" had determined they should actually be gelded, they'd just timidly stand there while their balls were sliced off.

Crator · 2013-03-08, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Translation: Be a victim, self defense of life, liberty and property isn't worth your time.

See, right here. How does what Meitz said translate to that? Less putting words in people's mouths and more debating what is being said makes more sense.

Do you guys live in bad areas or something?

belch · 2013-03-08, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

@Figment That's pretty much how I remembered it. I just didn't want to go back through all the posts in this thread and verify cause as I stated, it's a really big thread.

How you remember it, with the help of Figment's propaganda spin machine, is not how it went man. It's not about attacking him. Unless, disagreement with his views is considered an attack.

He has consistently waffled when facts do not support his theories. I am not one to agree with someone because of some popularity contest. Apparently, he thinks he can make it about a popularity contest.

I mean, wall of text or not, portrayal of the war in Yugoslavia is an excellent example. Conveniently missing the whole point, he blames the whole situation on...civilian gangs and opened armories? Oh...so the actual military of former Yugoslavia...they did't have access to weapons...and didn't actually turn into the major factions commiting genocide....

Look, I bet the guy was 8 when all that went down. All I'm saying is, he grossly oversimplifies things to fit his world view. I'm sure he is preparing a pie chart or something. Problem is, against men like Karadzic, you'd better come with sterner stuff than pie charts and public outrage. You show up with that in your hand...you end up like the folks massacred at Srebrenica. And the 'warriors' of Europe will politely wash their hands, making sure of their own safety...and wait for someone else to solve their problems.

SolLeks · 2013-03-08, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Gun fight what?
If someone wants to kill you and is set on doing it (and not just intimidate) they will. It matters little if they will use an AK47, a knife or a grenade launcher.

The time it takes you to react, you are already dead/injured. I can stick you with a switchblade faster than you can draw your gun. With a gun its even better, I can shoot you from a distance before you know I'm even there and aiming.

Last I checked guns do not stop bullets fired at you or knives from penetrating your skin.

Your scenario is a romanticized fantasy of high-noon shootouts in the wild west or a full on raid scenario from Mad Max.

Guns do not enhance your personal safety, statistically people with guns aren't any more safe from (violent) crime than people without, especially if the criminals have guns of their own.

Guess what, -you- aren't better than the cop. You also don't have 100% chance of preventing every crime that happens to you. In fact, being untrained, you have a significantly lower chance of preventing it from the start.

I first have to say, If a gunfight starts, unless it is point blank, there is the chance a person will miss their target. criminals are not known to be marksmen. I do not fantasize about gun fights, in fact I would be happiest if I never get into one in my life, however if it was to happen I would rather have a gun to at least try to defend myself with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

back to my original point, I am not talking about gun fights, but you can defend yourself from most attackers and robberies just by showing a gun, criminals don't want to get shot, and if they know that the general populace has weapons, they are much less likely to commit the crime.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...w=1280&bih=856

on a side note, do you expect a 110 pound woman to be able to defender herself agenced a rapist without a weapon? pepper spray only works so well, a gun works the best.

Originally Posted by Mietz

Vigilantism is in fact not the answer we discovered somewhere around 2000BC. I enjoy comic books too, but I don't want The Punisher running around dealing out his version of justice (even if only implied by his open carry).

The answer to "shit happens sometimes" isn't "guns" its "make shit happen less" (i.e. reduce the amount of time without law, response time of police, coverage of law enforcement, etc. pp). Guns do not solve your problem of riots. Less riots solve your problems with riots.

There will never be enough police to stop this 100% of the time. These type of riots have happened all over the world, and they will happen. natural disasters are another thing that will always happen in our world and there is not enough manpower in the government to fix it instantly 100% of the time.

Also, most of that is not vigilantism, most if that was self defense. these guys where not going around with their guns and rounding people up, they where using their guns to defend them selves and their property. The LA riots in fact had several fatalities where a mob of people just killed another person, If the people who where killed had guns, they would probably be alive today (this happend in 92). I agree that vigilantism is not a good thing, and that is not what I am advocating.

Originally Posted by Mietz

If they are unreported and evidence is not present, its not verifiable and hence myth. If you have hard evidence (which afaik, after a curtly search online, doesn't exist) please do present it.

Yes, you can show me a few youtube videos of security footage, I've seen it, but unless I have a hard number comparing these incidents to failed attempts, that claim is completely meaningless in this discussion.

and so is the theory that banning a lot of these guns will make less crime happen.

Originally Posted by Mietz

The amount of crime committed with guns or not is irrelevant. Laws are not made based on the amount of occurrence.
We will not legalize theft once it falls under the 1% margin in crime reports.
Similarly cost is also not an issue in making laws and assessing threats.
What is relevant is the potential of damage, which with guns and especially automatic weapons is quite high, far higher than than with white weaponry.

Then why do the current gun ban proposals in the US government have nothing to do with automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by Mietz

I admire your collection.
I have my own collection of weapons consisting of Swords, Axes, knives, throwing knives/stars, batons etc. Some of them are even hand-made on request.

Personally, I have nothing at all against collecting weaponry, I admire craftsmanship and their design.

Nevertheless, all my weapons (with the exception of 2-3 knives) are blunt, because I see no point in having large sharp objects in my household. It adds nothing to their design or craftsmanship which is of importance to me.

I own an AK47 and M16 from military storage (the AK i got in Poland, the M16 in germany when the US forces were leaving). They are completely functional except that their barrels are filled in with lead and thats perfectly fine.
For the life of me, I don't know why someone needs the weapon to be functioning if they only collect them and never expect to use them.

This might come as a shock, but I am an active member of a shooting range as well. Nevertheless I do not own one single functioning gun (although I have a license) and all the guns I shoot are rented from the range.
If you want to shoot some guns here, just go to your nearest firing range, pick a rifle, including auto and semi-auto, and fire away (under supervision by at least one trained individual if you don't have a license).

I'm telling you all this because I don't want you to think I'm against collecting weapons or shooting guns. All of these activities can be performed, safely, with a minimum of danger to everyone, without ever owning a functioning firearm yourself or having one in your house.

Well, most of the ranges I go to do not rent weapons, and I do like to shoot on top of collecting the weapons. I also collect military ordinance and none of that stuff is live so I do see your point to an extent but unlike swords, it is hard to practice marksmanship with deactivated weapons.

belch · 2013-03-08, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

...
Edit~

On a side note, I just thought I should show where my bias comes from.

This is my firearms collection, and none of them have hurt a sole (well, the ones from WW1 / 2 may have, but not since I got them)

Nice collection man. I have to say, I shudder to think what it costs you to run that P90. I bet 5.7 ammo is ridiculously expensive about now.

Oh...is that a Boss distortion pedal up there?

Crator · 2013-03-08, 06:08 PM

Ok whatever. I'll just ignore this thread from now on. You talk to people who don't know much like they should. Perhaps he is off his rocker with what he knows. I thought that was what the topic of this thread and the nature of a debate forum was supposed to accomplish, debate.

How the heck do I know if either are saying the truth, without facts that can verified? I never understood gun culture in the US. Was trying to get an understanding by people talking here but it's just a bunch of mud throwing here so I'll just leave.... If people are just going to attack each other and not really debate what they think and why they think it I don't care to listen to it.