• Guns are not the problem. It's the Media.
    101 replies, posted
I absolutely agree with the Title. I just recently stumbled over a compilation of all the discrepencies that have just been OVERLOOKED in the Sandy Hook incident. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIM0SaSL5k[/media]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39115621][IMG]http://puu.sh/1KfbQ/a7250dc5393937bdda4e029f2a1c1b5e[/IMG] Look at how scary that is! Wow! [IMG]http://puu.sh/1Kfcz/81eb85e82299f40f3ee7d6e40e398b1b[/IMG] That's better. But is it? The first image is not an assault weapon. It looks scarier than the second image, but the cartridge the second fires (.30-06) is much more lethal than the first one. Why is the first one less lethal? It's actually a .22LR rifle with a custom stock. The hole a .30-06 cartridge makes vs a .22LR hole is noncomparable. Getting shot by a .22 hurts like hell, but it'd take a mag dump (i.e. shooting the full mag capacity) to really kill someone with any immediacy. Now of course, this isn't fair because the first gun is modified, but the point still stands that assault weapons bans are silly because they eliminate only a small percentage of guns. Regardless, most gun crime is committed with a handgun, so why are assault rifles getting all the flak? For example: [url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url] 3/4 of all homicide is committed with a handgun. Hell, more people are killed with [B]fucking shotguns.[/B] Get your assault weapon ban nonsense out of here.[/QUOTE] except that g36 has a folding stock, making it easier to conceal, as well as a sight and suppressor
[QUOTE=McGii;39376061]except that g36 has a folding stock, making it easier to conceal, as well as a sight and suppressor[/QUOTE] Did you read anything said there? It's not a G36 [editline]27th January 2013[/editline] It's also silly to say it would be banned because of the stock. There are minimum length requirements for firearms in the US and most other countries. If it doesn't meed the length requirements when fold it you can't have it. Generally that means it goes into a higher restriction.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;39111308]Are you a fucking idiot? Automatics have been banned since 1934 and "Gangster Guns" what they were called back then. I was just fucking saying I'm glad that they are banned. Also Assault rifles are extensively used by the military. They shouldn't be in the hands of private owners as much as hand grenades, mortars, and M1 Abrams tanks. The least you could do is require tougher tests to get a license and also require a full background check to make sure that the person or anyone in their immediate family doesn't have mental problems. I know what the fuck the terms mean. Also Assault rifles were unbanned in 2004.[/QUOTE] Calling someone an idiot talking about something you have no idea about, Great job!
I try really hard not to slip totally into a paranoid delusional state, but hey with my mental condition it's understandable. I truly believe that the government is somehow making people do these things, or just capitilizing on it when it does really happen. It's just so strange how there are so many similarities. Like this girl that was shot in chicago a couple days ago. 15 years old no enemies, no one saw who was in the car. The car was described as a white sedan... really. The 2 or 3 different guys who called police and then shot them, found dead. Gun control will be imposed and I am sorry to say that being right is a terrible thing in this situation.
Assault weapons are bannable, but assault armor is not? It's just a term. You can purchase and own and wear in public body armor capable of stopping two magazines' worth of fire from just about any military weapon excluding anti-material shells from rifles as tall as you. People think the media invented the term "assault rifle," in reality that's just linguistics failure. A game of telephone, in other words. Assault rifles were developed by the military under that name because they were supposed to fill a niche. An example being the (arguably) second assault rifle ever developed, the Sturmgewehr 44. Its name translates to storm rifle, the intended purpose of the weapon was to assault enemy entrenched positions. So let's get something straight first off. This wasn't developed as a civilian weapon. It was designed by a military force so they could have a tactical advantage against their enemies. Ignore the fact it was made by an "evil doom faction" for a minute and just remember that most of the people who hate Nazi Germany love Soviet Russia without realizing that Stalin, whose terrible reign lasted way longer than Hitler's, committed a far greater amount of atrocities than Adolf himself. Thus, if your argument has anything to do with the people who made these weapons, you're wrong and we need to move onto bigger points for actually intelligent people. Let's be real for a minute: guns. Those are violent right? Dangerous, lethally so? They hurt people? Can kill thirty people in practically the blink of an eye of the person behind it is capable of using it to its utmost fullest potential? Yeah. Guns are dangerous. You can kill a lot of people if you have a gun. No one is contesting that point. However, I have a different argument to make, an age-old one which hasn't been disproved yet, so you can't do much in the way of complaining unless you actually have something reasonable to counter it with. Go hop in your dad's truck and run people down. I actually invite you to go and try it. I guarantee you will kill more people than any gun massacre artist as well as inflict far more property damage to those people who don't get seriously injured or killed on the spot from your two-ton, self-propelled vehicle. Even worse, the cops won't be on you unless they see you themselves. People aren't going to call the police and know exactly where you'll be in the five minutes it takes for them to arrive. If you travel at a steady 30 mph for 5 minutes, you've already gone two and a half miles. Why do civilians need them? A better question is, why not? Do we need cars? No, we don't, they can be used as tools of mass murder too. Need to get to work? You have legs and feet, and probably some fat to shave off as well. You could also just use public transportation which costs about the same and might end up getting you where you need to go even faster. So why cars? Because we can. The law says we can. Same thing for guns, arguing any differently is nonsense. So what are guns for? They're for killing people. It's up to the owner of the gun to be responsible with it, so regulation is of course a good idea, background checks, those are a-okay, but if you're keeping guns out of the hands of the populace, it's the enemies of the populace who will take advantage of it. Let's be real one more time and just get another statement out there: outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them. That's the truth. Your average chav isn't armed with a machine pistol and hiding five magazines of death in his jacket, sure, but then again, your average chav will probably give up trying to break into your house if he notices you're there or if the door is locked and none of your windows shatter on the first open-palm smack. However, say you're not in a tiny country like the UK where there's actually a booming black market where almost every criminal has some form of ballistic armament, whether it be his, or a community gun that's left in a trash can in some alleyway for whichever gang member needs to use it that day. People think there's no violent crime in the UK. "The US has more people dying each year to guns therefore guns are bad and must be banned!" Fact is there's more crime per capita than there is in the US. Source, you ask? [URL="http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime"]Read it and weep[/URL]. Scale the UK's crime up to the US's population and you'll have what is considered a civil war on your hands. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Tons of cops will say "you don't need guns, we're here to protect you." Second amendment. Sorry to those of you who are actually cops but your experience means nothing here. This is stuff anyone can find out. Situation: you have three guys outside, it's dark, you can't see them well, but they look like they have guns. They're approaching your house. You saw them first and they didn't see you, that's a relief. Doesn't happen that often, right? Not that big a deal, you don't need guns to defend yourself from that. You can either phone the cops or wait behind a corner with the biggest, sharpest knife your kitchen was home to. Let's assume you do the first option. You ring up the cops and slip out of your house, you wait in the neighbor's yard and watch the guys enter as you hang up your cell phone. A police cruiser pops up. The cops get out and meet up with the guys in front of your house. One clicks his flashlight on to get out of the darkness and you see that there are now five cops standing in front of your house. They enter and remain inside for ten minutes before leaving with your TV, your toaster oven, and the crib you built for that baby your girlfriend was expecting. Woops. We have guns because we're supposed to have the right to a militia. Am I saying it's right to kill cops, or even ones who are doing their job incorrectly, and abusing their power? No. But a badge and cuffs don't make a cop. Doing what's right does. If your government, or even another government, tried to squash your nation's people, they've crossed the line and they'll get theirs. During World War II, the commander in chief of the Japanese Navy was misattributed as saying that if they tried to invade America, there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass. He may not have really said it, but just think: in the event your government fails to protect you, are you going to let yourself be lined up on a wall with twenty other men, women, and children, the last thing you hear being the bloody gurgles of the one next to you? The answer to that question is the same as the one to the question, "should we ban guns?" If it isn't, you've got a lot of explaining to do on how you're going to fight off an invading army with a knife. You'd be a lot better off wielding a gun- the great equalizer- and [URL="http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html"]ripping into the heart of the enemy enough to make them give up[/URL]. "Finland had an army!" What's the different between a militia and an army again? There is no difference. When Napoleon invaded Russia he had not only the winter to fight, but the peasants who burned their villages away and ran. Good thing he didn't have any guns... or wait, didn't Hitler try the same thing and the peasant army of Soviet Russia rose up and took his guys out too? Point made.
Weapon production is the largest waste of human lives and resources conceivable, as the only purpose is destruction. War and death should never be a part of a profitable business model, since the entire world is currently dependent on the transactions of financial income.
Media is a catalyst for shootings, yes. So are guns, but neither are the real problem. The true problem is mental health care, or lack there of. Plain and simple.
[QUOTE=Nick Nack;39444223]Media is a catalyst for shootings, yes. So are guns, but neither are the real problem. The true problem is mental health care, or lack there of. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE] Would you give weapons of mass destruction to North Korea under the condition that Kim Jong-un received excellent psychiatric health care? Would you give a rifle to a monkey even though you have trained it not to use it? Public access and marketing should not be neglected as they provide tools of destruction to potentially anyone.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;39444517]Would you give weapons of mass destruction to North Korea under the condition that Kim Jong-un received excellent psychiatric health care? Would you give a rifle to a monkey even though you have trained it not to use it? Public access and marketing should not be neglected as they provide tools of destruction to potentially anyone.[/QUOTE] Strawman out the bum, dude. Don't even ask questions like that. You use blanket terms like "weapons" to make a sweeping point and you go on to say something as illogical as a responsible person shouldn't be able to own a bow and arrow. Saying guns are only meant to kill is like saying a car is only meant to smash into storefronts and steal everything, that the only purpose of a hammer is to break a skull open, or that video games are meant to get people addicted and fat so they lose all their friends and buy tons of video games. That's your logic right now. The purpose of guns, like any tool, varies. And yes, they're tools, not weapons. The keyboard you used to type up that post could have been used as a tool of destruction, the mouse you used to click this thread could have been used as a torture device (breaking someone's fingers in a slow, inefficient, painful way) or to strangle someone to death. Humans are weapons, not the tools they use to destroy. If you want to talk about how humane it is to even have nuclear bombs, go make a thread about it. This is the guns vs. media thread, and making hyperbolic statements about unrelated topics will not get you anywhere. You can say this "public access" and "marketing" junk all you want but you act like the burden of proof isn't on you. Well-known criminals didn't shoot up the Columbine school. In fact, Klebold and his buddy didn't buy them from a gun store with fake IDs. They got them off the black market, which can't be destroyed by restrictions that the government makes. You know the war on drugs? Same concept. You try to take people's guns away and America will turn into Mexico except it won't be cartels doing the fighting, it'll be the law-abiding citizens who want justice against a government who has failed to provide it. -- Since no real points have been presented for a while I decided I'd throw an extra point out there. [QUOTE=download;39088289]Even the military hardly uses full auto to kill people, because you can't hit shit with it. They only use it for suppressing fire[/QUOTE] True on the full auto not being used to kill people, but also false, as the military doesn't use full auto at all. Doctrine states for suppression, one shot is fired to the cover of the entrenched enemy every x seconds (usually between two and ten depending on the situation) for suppression. They are trained not to use fully automatic and in general can't because most military weapons actually don't even have full auto capabilities but rather burst fire.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;39456195]Strawman out the bum, dude. Don't even ask questions like that. You use blanket terms like "weapons" to make a sweeping point and you go on to say something as illogical as a responsible person shouldn't be able to own a bow and arrow.[/QUOTE] I just spent 30 minutes researching everything about what a Straw man argument fallacy is. I think two factors were responsible for my complete lack of ability to base my argument in the consistency and relevance in the appropriate positional perspective of this thread: 1. I watched Zeitgeist Addendum a couple of days ago and didn't realize that I can't just throw spontaneous thoughts on something that seems relevant in a thread in the Mass Debate forum without thinking. 2. I have Asperger Syndrome. I withdraw my previous statements. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] Having realized the nonsensical statements I have made, after just reading through the entire thread, I feel like I need to rectify my shit-stain of logic by contributing. Since weapons always will be available on the black market if banned, as we see from the example in the current situation pertaining psychoactive substances, the marketing for weaponry is irrelevant. As media is a form of business, Social Darwinism dictates that profitable income is worth more than human life. Censorship seems therefore unlikely. Analyzing the bio-psycho-social perspective as a whole, one conclusion is to add a class in elementary school that teaches social conduct based on a new atheistic religion, which would create and establish a norm for ethic and morality as ground rules in appropriate social behavior. Which would lead to an indoctrination or a cognitive programming to good behavior, the earlier this class is established among children the more receptive they will be. This would have the potential to create more functional psychopaths in society and reduce bullying. Remember that the definition of religion is simply rules on how to behave in society, divinity is not a requiring defining aspect.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.