[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38962372]Just don't turn your hobby into a [B]childish political agenda[/B].[/QUOTE]
What's that?
[QUOTE][B][I]childish political agenda[/I][/B].[/QUOTE]
Oh God the irony
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
And if I'm not wrong haven't you been pushing more gun control this entire week?
[QUOTE=Sableye;38945086]can someone explain a reason why one would need to possess 100+ round "hunting" mags?
otherwise let's regulate them like suppressors and flash suppressors, and automatic weapons
also
jessie james is just a paranoid nut who thinks he needs to carry a gun around 24/7 and live in a vault to stay alive. I've been to california, i didn't feel unusually unsafe, ive stayed in detroit not exactly safe in some parts, but carrying a gun wouldnt change that. the problem i see with guns and these shootings is that every time its some 15-20 something kid who's not even the owner of the gun, and the parents had bought it for him as a gift or something. GUNS ARE NOT TOYS, parents need to realise that[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you're talking about, because the 100+ round drum mags are insanely expensive and incredibly finicky to boot. They also weigh a metric fuckton and aren't particularly useful compared to a 30 round standard mag that can be emergency reloaded within 5 seconds. Add a Magpul BAD lever and some practice and it's down to 2 seconds.
[editline]26th December 2012[/editline]
And 100 round cloth boxes are already the standard for the M249 SAW because the 200 round plastic boxes were so fucking heavy and finicky. Contrary to popular belief, the point of automatic fire isn't to kill people, it's to suppress. Trained people do not shoot to kill in automatic, they do it in semi-auto.
It shouldn't be a line that we draw, it should a set of intelligent bills.
Seperate bills or place together.
Firstly, we need to address the stressed and collapsing mental health system in the United States. We need to re-enact everything that wasn't thrown aside by Reagan.
Second, a revised AWB that removes a bunch of the stupid cosmetic shit that doesn't mean anything like bayonet mounts. We should focus on high capacity magazine, kits designed to change the semi-automatic nature of a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle. We should not ban because of material or look of a gun, that's just stupid. We need to tackle the actually modifications that can make a gun more dangerous, the largest of which is the changing the accepted chambered round and high capacity magazines. The removal of the gun show loophole followed by bi-yearly psych exams of gun owners.
I don't want to push yearly to avoid stressing out a system.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38987499]It shouldn't be a line that we draw, it should a set of intelligent bills.
Seperate bills or place together.
Firstly, we need to address the stressed and collapsing mental health system in the United States. We need to re-enact everything that wasn't thrown aside by Reagan.
Second, a revised AWB that removes a bunch of the stupid cosmetic shit that doesn't mean anything like bayonet mounts. We should focus on high capacity magazine, kits designed to change the semi-automatic nature of a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle. We should not ban because of material or look of a gun, that's just stupid. We need to tackle the actually modifications that can make a gun more dangerous, the largest of which is the changing the accepted chambered round and high capacity magazines. The removal of the gun show loophole followed by bi-yearly psych exams of gun owners.
I don't want to push yearly to avoid stressing out a system.[/QUOTE]
Mag cap bans are dumb because of how easy it is to change a magazine
Kits that turn semis into full autos are already illegal
How does changing the chambering make it more dangerous?
[QUOTE=download;38987753]Mag cap bans are dumb because of how easy it is to change a magazine
Kits that turn semis into full autos are already illegal
How does changing the chambering make it more dangerous?[/QUOTE]
"Because bigger bullet means bigger hole and bigger hole means bigger deth herp"
Bottom line is, especially for bullets like the .40 and .45, the difference is negligible and you can easily do the same amount of damage with any similar calibres by just aiming, goddamnit
If I hit you in the head with a .380 instead of a .50 is it going to make that much difference?
[QUOTE=sgman91;38919570]Any country with a very heterogeneous society has higher violence rates.[/QUOTE]
hi im sgman91 and i dont know that japan exists
[QUOTE=Hayburner;38993570]hi im sgman91 and i dont know that japan exists[/QUOTE]
Hi, I'm Hayburner and I don't know that Japan isn't really heterogeneous.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;38993708]Hi, I'm Hayburner and I don't know that Japan isn't really heterogeneous.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/demographics_profile.html[/url]
[quote]Ethnic groups
Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6% [/quote]
98.5% isnt heterogeneous? the outliers can be discarded as statistical anomalies. xenophobia doesnt deserve the stigma that you give it, it is simply a natural human response to the loss of cultural identity and the freedom to preserve your race's heritage. DEAL WITH IT
I of all people would never say xenofobia is bad. What I'm saying is that yes, when almost 99% of a country is made of the same ethnic group, it's not heterogeneous.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;38994714][url]http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/demographics_profile.html[/url]
98.5% isnt heterogeneous? the outliers can be discarded as statistical anomalies. xenophobia doesnt deserve the stigma that you give it, [B]it is simply a natural human response to the loss of cultural identity and the freedom to preserve your race's heritage[/B]. DEAL WITH IT[/QUOTE]
Bringing out the ~biotruths~ now are we? Please, of enlightened master, provide evidence (non-anecdotal obviously), that can prove we have a natural hatred for other cultures and ethnicities?
The closest you will find is probably the same reason we tend to dislike strangers of the same ethnicity compared to our family. It's because they look different to us. But that doesn't mean we have to follow that, we are more intelligent that than.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;38995116]Bringing out the ~biotruths~ now are we? Please, of enlightened master, provide evidence (non-anecdotal obviously), that can prove we have a natural hatred for other cultures and ethnicities?
The closest you will find is probably the same reason we tend to dislike strangers of the same ethnicity compared to our family. It's because they look different to us. But that doesn't mean we have to follow that, we are more intelligent that than.[/QUOTE]
using "hatred" to describe xenophobia is overdoing it. its not "dislike" either. its simply the act of keeping your nation for the native population/ethnicity. what if whites started immigrating to peru and started outnumbering the peruvians to the point of decimating their culture? would that be okay? this is a real issue going on in the west, it shouldnt be dismissed so lightly.
anyway i digress, lets not let the thread get derailed.
Similar to my views on drug control, I would have to say that I don't really care what weapons are legal, because, again, like drugs, if you want the gun, or you want the drug, you're going to get it regardless of the law.
It's either unlimited freedom or no freedom imo.
The matter isn't how to control guns, it's how to treat and prevent mental illnesses.
[editline]wat[/editline]
Let me put it another way, I honestly do not see any logic in any weapons bans. Just because we're a more advanced society and possess superior technology, in terms of firearms, weapons, than we did in the past, doesn't mean we should start banning them. I guess my logic behind this would be, let's say we're in the Middle Ages, and there was a small Church or something, a building with children. One day, a bandit decides to take a bow and arrow and wait for their session to end, and as he sees civilians exiting the building, he is hidden behind some foliage and begins firing arrows one by one into said civilians. Let's say this man had decent accuracy and there were over 20 fatalities. The following week, should local cities rally about how we need to ban bows and arrows? What about instead of using a bow and arrow, he set the building on fire, should we now ban anything that is flammable?
Hell we're not even in the Middle Ages anymore, we're in 2012, and someone lights a building on fire, again, flammable materials = banned? I don't think so.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure using guns make killing easier, taking guns away will mean people will use other tools/methods, like knives, basically anything that can be used to kill. Look at prisons, would it be more humane to be shot? Or gutted by a sharpened toothbrush?
[QUOTE=desertdog11;39020978]Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure using guns make killing easier, taking guns away will mean people will use other tools/methods, like knives, basically anything that can be used to kill. Look at prisons, would it be more humane to be shot? Or gutted by a sharpened toothbrush?[/QUOTE]
But that's not true, because in countries where guns are banned there aren't just as many or more spree killings with other methods. Face it: guns are the reason there's more spree killings happening than ever before.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39021334]But that's not true, because in countries where guns are banned there aren't just as many or more spree killings with other methods. Face it: guns are the reason there's more spree killings happening than ever before.[/QUOTE]
You are falling into the correlation implies causation fallacy.
There are more differences between those countries that can affect homicides than gun control.
There are also some countries with lax gun control and low homicide rates, such as Switzerland.
[QUOTE=Valnar;39021462]You are falling into the correlation implies causation fallacy.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Valnar;39021462]
There are also some countries with lax gun control and low homicide rates, such as Switzerland.[/QUOTE]
You are clearly trolling.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39021627]You are clearly trolling.[/QUOTE]
hmm, how do I put this, Oh!
No you.
[editline]29th December 2012[/editline]
he was using that as a sort of response to the one he was replying to.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39021627]You are clearly trolling.[/QUOTE]
No I wasn't, but you might be.
First, saying that just straight up that gun restrictions stop killing sprees because there exists some countries with low killing sprees and gun restrictions is a logical fallacy.
It is a fallacy because it ignores other factors.
Second, Switzerland has a gun ownership rate that is comparable to that of the U.S., but they have an extremely low amount of homicides by guns.
It shows that high gun ownership rate doesn't imply high homicide rate.
What might be the factor that causes less homicides in Switzerland could be a number of things.
It could be the gun education that the swiss people have, it could be the fact Switzerland has less poverty, or it could be a lot of other factors.
However, restricting guns is not why Switzerland has low homicide rates and guns aren't causing killing sprees there.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39021627]You are clearly trolling.[/QUOTE]
your name is very fitting
[QUOTE]But that's not true, because in countries where guns are banned there aren't just as many or more spree killings with other methods. Face it: guns are the reason there's more spree killings happening than ever before.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you see, if guns were to be outlawed other methods would rise. Killing sprees are rare, the government should deal with the root cause instead of banning guns for everyday normal people, a minority is causing this issue. The government should look into poverty, welfare, and social issues relating to killing sprees, not by issuing a quick fix law that does barely anything to quell gun ownership. Guns are apart of American culture, you can't take away something that has been attached for hundreds of years.
[QUOTE=desertdog11;39023268]Yes, but you see, if guns were to be outlawed other methods would rise.[/QUOTE]
Do you have proof of this? Because almost all countries that have guns strictly controlled have much less incidents of spree killings, especially with weapons that aren't guns.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres[/url]
The 3 deadliest school shootings in recent history were committed in the US, there's a reason for this. Other countries have benefited from gun control in the wake of these crimes, and it's shown in a direct reduction of spree killings.
[editline]30th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Valnar;39022344]No I wasn't, but you might be.
First, saying that just straight up that gun restrictions stop killing sprees because there exists some countries with low killing sprees and gun restrictions is a logical fallacy.
It is a fallacy because it ignores other factors.
Second, Switzerland has a gun ownership rate that is comparable to that of the U.S., but they have an extremely low amount of homicides by guns.
It shows that high gun ownership rate doesn't imply high homicide rate.
What might be the factor that causes less homicides in Switzerland could be a number of things.
It could be the gun education that the swiss people have, it could be the fact Switzerland has less poverty, or it could be a lot of other factors.
However, restricting guns is not why Switzerland has low homicide rates and guns aren't causing killing sprees there.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
Switzerland has more firearms-related deaths than countries that have exponentially higher populations and restrictive gun laws, even with crime allowing easy proliferation in certain countries.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39024179]Do you have proof of this? Because almost all countries that have guns strictly controlled have much less incidents of spree killings, especially with weapons that aren't guns.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres[/url]
The 3 deadliest school shootings in recent history were committed in the US, there's a reason for this. Other countries have benefited from gun control in the wake of these crimes, and it's shown in a direct reduction of spree killings.
[editline]30th December 2012[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
Switzerland has more firearms-related deaths than countries that have exponentially higher populations and restrictive gun laws, even with crime allowing easy proliferation in certain countries.[/QUOTE]
You firearms deaths number includes suicides. If you include suicides of courses the death rate will be higher. People, instead of downing a bottle of pills or going for a bath with a toaster, will just off themselves with a gun. You need to look at the murder rate, and not the firearms murder rate because that will not tell you if people have simply moved onto other murder weapons (or lack of them).
Switzerland is 4th in the word for gun ownership (the highest not including the US for the developed world) at 45 guns per hundred (not including military firearms which are in the hands of civilians) yet has the 16th lowest murder rate in the world at 0.7 per 100,000
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/url]
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39024179]Do you have proof of this? Because almost all countries that have guns strictly controlled have much less incidents of spree killings, especially with weapons that aren't guns.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#School_massacres[/url]
The 3 deadliest school shootings in recent history were committed in the US, there's a reason for this. Other countries have benefited from gun control in the wake of these crimes, and it's shown in a direct reduction of spree killings.
[editline]30th December 2012[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
Switzerland has more firearms-related deaths than countries that have exponentially higher populations and restrictive gun laws, even with crime allowing easy proliferation in certain countries.[/QUOTE]
Honestly with your past posts and your name I don't know if you're being sincerely oblivious or just successfully getting us to waste a lot of our time.
[QUOTE=download;39025450]You firearms deaths number includes suicides. If you include suicides of courses the death rate will be higher. People, instead of downing a bottle of pills or going for a bath with a toaster, will just off themselves with a gun. You need to look at the murder rate, and not the firearms murder rate because that will not tell you if people have simply moved onto other murder weapons (or lack of them).
Switzerland is 4th in the word for gun ownership (the highest not including the US for the developed world) at 45 guns per hundred (not including military firearms which are in the hands of civilians) yet has the 16th lowest murder rate in the world at 0.7 per 100,000
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/url][/QUOTE]
And why shouldn't suicides be considered in gun deaths...? You can't just arbitrarily exclude figures to make your stance seem better, you know.
[QUOTE=Cruma;39025681]Honestly with your past posts and your name I don't know if you're being sincerely oblivious or just successfully getting us to waste a lot of our time.[/QUOTE]
Oblivious? Look at the facts. Guns cause more deaths when put in the hands of anyone. Almost everywhere, crime goes down without guns, guns make it easier to commit crime and to harm others in the process. The only oblivious person here is you.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026473]And why shouldn't suicides be considered in gun deaths...? You can't just arbitrarily exclude figures to make your stance seem better, you know.
[/QUOTE]
And you can't arbitrary include suicides when we're talking about murders
Because if you just take away one suicide tool they'll just use one of the many others available to them. Say; downing a bottle of pills, hanging themselves, jumping off a bridge... need I go on?
Murder is different because the victim isn't willing
[QUOTE=download;39026504]
Because if you just take away one suicide tool they'll just use one of the many others available to them. Say; downing a bottle of pills, hanging themselves, jumping off a bridge... need I go on?
[/QUOTE]
Slippery slope fallacy. People aren't spree killing with knives and cars in nearly as high numbers as people do with guns, and in areas where guns are banned they didn't increase. It'd almost certainly be the same for suicides.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39026521]Slippery slope fallacy. [/quote]
How the hell is that a slippery slope fallacy?
[quote]People aren't spree killing with knives and cars in nearly as high numbers as people do with guns, and in areas where guns are banned they didn't increase. [/quote]
I was under the assumption we were discussing suicides here?
[quote]It'd almost certainly be the same for suicides.[/QUOTE]
Cite it.
I doubt it would seeing as people killing themselves are willing
[editline]30th December 2012[/editline]
You sound like a Sobotnik alt
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
