[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39136663]People are entitled to their opinions, even if they have guards.
Also i don't like the guy in the video when he makes derisive comments about gun control legislators around Sandy Hook.
Or when he says that Gun control people jump on the shootings, the other side is guilty of this too. The NRA blames everything but guns whenever this sort of thing happens.[/QUOTE]
The NRA at least waited a week before saying anything about the shooting. Meanwhile other groups were using the tragedy to forward their political agenda before the bodies had even been removed from the scene.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39139594]The NRA at least waited a week before saying anything about the shooting. Meanwhile other groups were using the tragedy to forward their political agenda before the bodies had even been removed from the scene.[/QUOTE]
The anti-gun people always pull the "if now isn't a good time for the gun control debate, when is?" card, and it's annoying. I mean, it's not like there's always a mass shooting and the debate is always timed inappropriately. It's just wrong that people only care when there's a tragedy (which are still less than 1% of all firearm deaths, mind you.)
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Like really, I don't mind if people want to call for gun control. But do it for valid reasons.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39137089]Most of what that guy is saying makes it sound as though he's clueless, or doing it for expediency.
He says you are a hypocrite for believing in the first amendment whilst supporting gun control.[/QUOTE]
What he's saying is that if you support gun control, you support the castration of the public in their ability to defend the rest of the constitution.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;39137620]House is the only thing standing in the way of these 2 bills. Senate and Congress are controlled by the democrats. Think.[/QUOTE]
I am thinking, and I think that if you looked up who held the house and senate you would be pleasantly surprised.
[QUOTE]To be honest, I hope to God I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
Given you have been wrong about incredibly obvious things which took me about 5 seconds on google to find, I would say it's not a far stretch.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39139429]I agree with you on the conspiracy bit, but I do see the angle he's talking about. He's basically saying the government wants to disarm us so they can do whatever they damn well please with no risk of repercussions from their own citizens. I'm not usually one to buy into conspiracy theories and I don't buy into this one, but I'm not gonna lie, the idea scares me.[/QUOTE]
It's a scary idea, but then so is the idea of a meteor hitting us.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39139594]The NRA at least waited a week before saying anything about the shooting. Meanwhile other groups were using the tragedy to forward their political agenda before the bodies had even been removed from the scene.[/QUOTE]
Right but does that excuse the NRA from blaming everything from the media to Obama and video games?
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39139822]The anti-gun people always pull the "if now isn't a good time for the gun control debate, when is?" card, and it's annoying. I mean, it's not like there's always a mass shooting and the debate is always timed inappropriately. It's just wrong that people only care when there's a tragedy (which are still less than 1% of all firearm deaths, mind you.)
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Like really, I don't mind if people want to call for gun control. But do it for valid reasons.[/QUOTE]
Please stop lumping the opposition into a big homogeneous mass.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39140061]What he's saying is that if you support gun control, you support the castration of the public in their ability to defend the rest of the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Except the second amendment does fuck all to protect the constitution.
Gun ownership rates do not correlate with political freedoms.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39140965]Right but does that excuse the NRA from blaming everything from the media to Obama and video games?[/QUOTE]
The NRA is right to blame the media. The news publishes every little factoid about the killer for weeks after the event. They give detailed timelines and layouts of what the killer used, enabling copy cats and others who would want to do the same by doing the research for them.
Hollywood, who publically decries gun ownership, yet makes the vast majority of it's money from the actors dual weilding belt-fed machine guns and mowing down countless people in gory detail.
(side note I don't really care for the music at the end of the video, but I didn't make it, so, whatever)
[video=youtube;hxRlpRcorEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/video]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39141723]The NRA is right to blame the media.[/QUOTE]
Except the media is a phrase used to describe such a vast range of things from news to game shows to political satire and pornography. The NRA has an idiotic idea that somehow video games or hollywood causes these shootings.
[quote]The news publishes every little factoid about the killer for weeks after the event. They give detailed timelines and layouts of what the killer used, enabling copy cats and others who would want to do the same by doing the research for them.[/quote]
Right, but nothing is there to stop the killers from doing research themselves. The internet exists. You don't need a news company to tell you.
[quote]Hollywood, who publically decries gun ownership, yet makes the vast majority of it's money from the actors dual weilding belt-fed machine guns and mowing down countless people in gory detail.[/quote]
How the fuck is Hollywood a homogenous blob that hates gun ownership?
Why the fuck blame Hollywood instead of something at least more likely to be a cause, like the education system?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39141785]Why the fuck blame Hollywood instead of something at least more likely to be a cause, like the education system?[/QUOTE]
Because the antis won't got after the real problem, either.
It's easier to blame the symptoms, than the problem.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39141962]Because the antis won't got after the real problem, either.
It's easier to blame the symptoms, than the problem.[/QUOTE]
Ok but supporting pro-gun over anti-gun does fuck all to solve anything.
There's different ways to fix the problem. You don't use something caused by one thing to campaign about how we need something else entirely that'll do fuck all.
For instance, saying that teachers need to carry guns to protect the kids is doing fuck all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39142035]For instance, saying that teachers need to carry guns to protect the kids is doing fuck all.[/QUOTE]
You are right, just saying that teachers need to carry guns is not going to do a thing. However, actually having trained personal WOULD do something. It would do more than than banning, limiting, and restricting firearms. You can ban hi-capacity magazines, but that will make the murderers just carry more magazines. You can ban certain types of guns, require registration, require licensing, require mental health screenings, but at the end of the day the criminal will still get the gun.
Plain fact, this country has had gun ownership since it's inception, it was one of the principles the country was built on. Guns have and always will exist in America. Aside from the NFA, the legality of gun ownership has remained largely unchanged through all of these years. With the hundreds of millions of guns already owned in America, no amount of Gun Control legislation will help, and Illinois is a PRIME example of this. Anti-gun proponents view guns as the problem, when in reality they are just as much a solution. I'm not saying people need to be armed to gun down bad guys, but the mere presence or knowledge of armed personal is an excellent deterrent. It's well known that a firearm is a deterrent rather than a lethal force in more altercations than not. Knowing that schools have armed and trained personal will deter more school shootings than having restrictions on guns themselves.
Gun Control is an excellent idea, in countries where gun ownership was not a defining principle of said country. People try to compare the United States to places like Australia, where firearm ownership is regulated and crime rates are lower. Yes, this is great, but Australia was not built like the United States. Gun ownership was not a founding principle for Australia. When something has always existed for a nation it is fruitless to try and put restrictions on it, because in reality the restrictions will do little. The better option is to use it's existence to help solve the problem, and not try to mask the issue.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39142505]You are right, just saying that teachers need to carry guns is not going to do a thing. However, actually having trained personal WOULD do something. It would do more than than banning, limiting, and restricting firearms. You can ban hi-capacity magazines, but that will make the murderers just carry more magazines. You can ban certain types of guns, require registration, require licensing, require mental health screenings, but at the end of the day the criminal will still get the gun.
Plain fact, this country has had gun ownership since it's inception, it was one of the principles the country was built on. Guns have and always will exist in America. Aside from the NFA, the legality of gun ownership has remained largely unchanged through all of these years. With the hundreds of millions of guns already owned in America, no amount of Gun Control legislation will help, and Illinois is a PRIME example of this. Anti-gun proponents view guns as the problem, when in reality they are just as much a solution. I'm not saying people need to be armed to gun down bad guys, but the mere presence or knowledge of armed personal is an excellent deterrent. It's well known that a firearm is a deterrent rather than a lethal force in more altercations than not. Knowing that schools have armed and trained personal will deter more school shootings than having restrictions on guns themselves.
Gun Control is an excellent idea, in countries where gun ownership was not a defining principle of said country. People try to compare the United States to places like Australia, where firearm ownership is regulated and crime rates are lower. Yes, this is great, but Australia was not built like the United States. Gun ownership was not a founding principle for Australia. When something has always existed for a nation it is fruitless to try and put restrictions on it, because in reality the restrictions will do little. The better option is to use it's existence to help solve the problem, and not try to mask the issue.[/QUOTE]
The problem with deterrence however is it doesn't really help with crime.
I could shoot the criminal and that's him dead and gone, but it won't prevent more of them coming or knowing when they do or why.
Well I think the point is, even 1 cop stationed at each school will ward off a lot of crazies. As it stands right now, gun free zone is another way of saying "prime massacre target."
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39142723]Well I think the point is, even 1 cop stationed at each school will ward off a lot of crazies. As it stands right now, gun free zone is another way of saying "prime massacre target."[/QUOTE]
Right, but there's still mentally unstable people going around.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39142734]Right, but there's still mentally unstable people going around.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, no amount of criminal deterrence stops this.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39142745]Well yeah, no amount of criminal deterrence stops this.[/QUOTE]
So you haven't already solved anything at all, you just made them go elsewhere, or figure out a way to get past/rid of the guard.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39142801]So you haven't already solved anything at all, you just made them go elsewhere, or figure out a way to get past/rid of the guard.[/QUOTE]
Gun Control has absolutely nothing to do with the mental health of individuals. You can completely restrict guns, magazines, and ammunition, but that does not change the mental state of said individuals. Better mental health care would do more in this situation than gun control would.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;39142866]Gun Control has absolutely nothing to do with the mental health of individuals. You can completely restrict guns, magazines, and ammunition, but that does not change the mental state of said individuals. Better mental health care would do more in this situation than gun control would.[/QUOTE]
This is basically what I already said, although reworded.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39142801]So you haven't already solved anything at all, you just made them go elsewhere, or figure out a way to get past/rid of the guard.[/QUOTE]
I want to show you an graph created with the average murder rate across the world versus gun ownership per capita. This information is culled from statistics such as the FBI and the Office of Home Security in Britain:
[img]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3516/1356724420153.png[/img]
I want you to notice the distinct lack of correlation that gun ownership has to do with homicides. On top of that, I want to bring your attention to the fact that statistically, Britain has more violent crime than the US does, and the US includes rape as a violent crime while the UK does not ( [url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0812/hosb0812?view=Binary[/url] ).
From the FBI's website, violent crime occured, in 2011, about 386 times per 100,000 people (FBI). And, on top of that, rifles (like the XM-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting) are used in about 3.4% (FBI as well) of all violent crimes. So REALISTICALLY, with or without the bans that are in place (posts previous to mine have shown that violent crime and gun ownership don't go hand in hand already, and people have already shown that there is a very very solid argument that gun control and strict enforcement has not led to the drop in crime rates that we have seen over the last 20-30 years), a person living in the US has a .0115% of being involved in a violent crime where the person who committed the crime was using a rifle, and that doesn't even take into consideration the variations between semi-automatic and fully automatic and hi-capacity magazines versus standard capacity magazines, et cetera.
You yourself are admitting the problem: The lack of proper documentation and treatment of people who are mentally ill coupled with the lack of proper checks on people who are untreated with serious mental illnesses due in large parts to poverty and a stigmatization of people who are mentally ill and admit it leads to a situation where people who are unsafe with weaponry being able to acquire weaponry whether it be legally or illegally.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39140965]I am thinking, and I think that if you looked up who held the house and senate you would be pleasantly surprised.
Given you have been wrong about incredibly obvious things which took me about 5 seconds on google to find, I would say it's not a far stretch.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
It's a scary idea, but then so is the idea of a meteor hitting us.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Right but does that excuse the NRA from blaming everything from the media to Obama and video games?
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Please stop lumping the opposition into a big homogeneous mass.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
Except the second amendment does fuck all to protect the constitution.
Gun ownership rates do not correlate with political freedoms.[/QUOTE]
Except it does protect the constitution.
Guns are collateral to show the politicians that if they push the envelope too far that they're going to run into some resistance.
[editline]8th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39143082]I want to show you an graph created with the average murder rate across the world versus gun ownership per capita. This information is culled from statistics such as the FBI and the Office of Home Security in Britain:
[img]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3516/1356724420153.png[/img]
[/QUOTE]
Very nice graph you have there. I'll be sure to use it.
I hate it when people state that "more guns increase firearms related violence", well no shit Sherlock, what we should care about is the situation overall!
Thanks for showing that graph, really contributes to what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39142694]The problem with deterrence however is it doesn't really help with crime.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the definition of deterrence.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1LpDo[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39149024]Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the definition of deterrence.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1LpDo[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Semantics is wank.
The deterrence that a gun provides, /doesn't/ help stop crime.
It's about as helpful as making a law which said "if you break the law, you are executed".
Sure it's deterrence, but it does fuck all to prevent crime.
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39145538]Except it does protect the constitution.
Guns are collateral to show the politicians that if they push the envelope too far that they're going to run into some resistance.[/QUOTE]
So far there's been loads of events in America that "breached" the constitution, but many of them have remained.
When /is/ the final straw?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39149050]Semantics is wank.
The deterrence that a gun provides, /doesn't/ help stop crime.
It's about as helpful as making a law which said "if you break the law, you are executed".
Sure it's deterrence, but it does fuck all to prevent crime.[/QUOTE]
Because it's just words. Follow through on the promise, and those that would be effected will think twice.
[QUOTE=Ridge;39149587]Because it's just words. Follow through on the promise, and those that would be effected will think twice.[/QUOTE]
What does this even mean? Gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime or freedom or economic growth or disease or rainfall or average land elevation in a country.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39149669]What does this even mean? Gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime[/quote]
Don't you usually argue that they do?
[quote]or freedom[/quote]
Exercising one's freedom
[quote]or economic growth[/quote]
Considering the millions of Americans employed through the gun industry, the fact that companies who make guns are reporting record profits and the like, I think there would be an argument for economic growth
[quote]or disease or rainfall or average land elevation in a country.[/QUOTE]
Those, probably not. At least until land elevation increases because people freak out and bury their guns.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39149669]What does this even mean? Gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime or freedom or economic growth or disease or rainfall or average land elevation in a country.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. If you're saying that gun ownership doesn't correlate with anything relevant (which I agree on), why are you so keen in gun control?
I'd feel less free if i couldn't own a gun, though.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;39150248]Why are you so keen in gun control?[/QUOTE]
Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;39150212]Don't you usually argue that they do?[/QUOTE]
no i argue the opposite
[QUOTE]Exercising one's freedom[/QUOTE]
gun ownership rates don't correlate with political freedoms, try again
[QUOTE]Considering the millions of Americans employed through the gun industry, the fact that companies who make guns are reporting record profits and the like, I think there would be an argument for economic growth[/QUOTE]
except if there weren't guns, people would be spending it on other things. try harder
[QUOTE=PzOwNeD;39143082]I want to show you an graph created with the average murder rate across the world versus gun ownership per capita. This information is culled from statistics such as the FBI and the Office of Home Security in Britain:
[img]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3516/1356724420153.png[/img]
I want you to notice the distinct lack of correlation that gun ownership has to do with homicides. On top of that, I want to bring your attention to the fact that statistically, Britain has more violent crime than the US does, and the US includes rape as a violent crime while the UK does not ( [url]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0812/hosb0812?view=Binary[/url] ).
From the FBI's website, violent crime occured, in 2011, about 386 times per 100,000 people (FBI). And, on top of that, rifles (like the XM-15 used in the Sandy Hook shooting) are used in about 3.4% (FBI as well) of all violent crimes. So REALISTICALLY, with or without the bans that are in place (posts previous to mine have shown that violent crime and gun ownership don't go hand in hand already, and people have already shown that there is a very very solid argument that gun control and strict enforcement has not led to the drop in crime rates that we have seen over the last 20-30 years), a person living in the US has a .0115% of being involved in a violent crime where the person who committed the crime was using a rifle, and that doesn't even take into consideration the variations between semi-automatic and fully automatic and hi-capacity magazines versus standard capacity magazines, et cetera.
You yourself are admitting the problem: The lack of proper documentation and treatment of people who are mentally ill coupled with the lack of proper checks on people who are untreated with serious mental illnesses due in large parts to poverty and a stigmatization of people who are mentally ill and admit it leads to a situation where people who are unsafe with weaponry being able to acquire weaponry whether it be legally or illegally.[/QUOTE]
I'd preferred that graph to only have first world countries
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39150342]Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I wrongly supposed you were. What are we debating here again?
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;39150423]I'd preferred that graph to only have first world countries[/QUOTE]
:-(
[QUOTE=download;39150423]I'd preferred that graph to only have first world countries[/QUOTE]
I can see Australia and Japan and the USA and France and Sweden and there still seems to be no correlation.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39150623]I can see Australia and Japan and the USA and France and Sweden and there still seems to be no correlation.[/QUOTE]
I don't expect there to be a correlation. It's just that all the 3rd world countries clutter up the graph when I only really care about 1st world as they would be the only ones I can compare to Australia
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
