[QUOTE=viper720666;39335042]Why do people feel the need to ban "assault style" weapons anyway? Can we emphasize [B]style[/B]? Like, aesthetics? A Mini 14 will do the same amount of damage as any AR or AK out there, but it will never be the subject of a ban because it doesn't [B]look[/B] like an assault rifle. Crimes committed with long guns are exponentially less than those committed with handguns. The only reason they have managed to restrict 'assault' weapons to this point is because of the correlation to [I]actual[/I] military weapons, and the emphasis of the ominous looks of them. It's just the first step gun grabbers took in chiseling away away at our gun rights. Anyone who thinks they plan to stop at 'assault' weapons is lying to themselves.[/QUOTE]
The idea is to make it seem like the only reason you would want an "assault weapon" is to...well, assault someone with it. People pushing the "assault weapon" agenda want to make legitimate owners look like criminals, thus creating a public drive to ban their legitimate guns. I refuse to use the term when talking to most people about it because it's utter bullshit. Anything you assault someone with is your assault weapon; that can be anything from an AK to a frying pan to your fist. The whole thing is really just a bunch of fearmongering.
Dunno if this is posted elsewhere but here
[url]http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?v=0HSIdX8NOhQ[/url]
Vice President is live, answering questions. Don't know how long this will go on.
Jesus christ he keeps calling them "shells"
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39308847]It wouldn't make a difference. If someone wants to get your guns, they're going to get them.[/QUOTE]
In Australia people try to steal gun safes and end up breaking their cars. One guy broke a truck trying to drag a safe out of where it was bolted to concrete.
[QUOTE=McGii;39372055]In Australia people try to steal gun safes and end up breaking their cars. One guy broke a truck trying to drag a safe out of where it was bolted to concrete.[/QUOTE]
A small minority of gun owners actually take the time to secure a gun safe that way. They still would've been able to drill through the safe itself, regardless.
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39372116]A small minority of gun owners actually take the time to secure a gun safe that way. They still would've been able to drill through the safe itself, regardless.[/QUOTE]
No, that's the law in Australia. They police come and inspect your safe to make sure it's compliant. Drilling through the safe take a lot more time than trying to drag it out of the wall with a car, not to mention simply drilling a hole in the safe doesn't give you access to the safe contents
[QUOTE=gay_idiot;39372116]A small minority of gun owners actually take the time to secure a gun safe that way. They still would've been able to drill through the safe itself, regardless.[/QUOTE]
its required by law here
you won't be drilling through a safe you can't move with a truck in the time it takes for someone to wake up and call the cops
besides you'd have to drill a massive hole to be able to stick your arm in and twist the guns so they fit rhough
Wow, Australia's gun safe law seems to be quite well implemented.
[QUOTE=download;39298246]They also shouldn't be passing laws to discourage people from smoking. [B]It's a persons choice, though it is another topic[/B][/QUOTE]
Can I please say that this is the worst argument for anything regardless of the topic at hand? Everyone throws around "it's my right to _______" but really, is it? How are we determining rights? Rights are always being expanded, restricted, given, and taken away, because as a society we learn over time what is good for society and what is not. As a society, we have learned through hundreds of years and millions of research studies that there is absolutely no benefit to smoking tobacco and only drawbacks, so why can't we, as a society, decide that it has no place in our country? It's like brass knuckles or hollow point bullets - we clearly all can agree that the only practical use of them is for something negative (fistfights and shooting through body armor, and deer/shooting range targets don't wear body armor). So we banned them. We passed a law that let everyone know, okay - these are not okay to have. If you do have them, you will be prosecuted. Sure, criminals still manage to obtain them, but do you honestly think the problem would be no better without legislation in place to allow law enforcement to arrest offenders?
It's absolutely foolish to arbitrarily determine rights solely because there are activities that [I]some people enjoy,[/I] especially when those activities objectively serve no good purpose.
And now:
[QUOTE=download;39298246]Passing laws to discourage people from a hobby that doesn't harm anyone else is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[B]Gun ownership as a hobby[/B]
You are correct. Shooting guns at a range and hunting are certainly both hobbies that almost never harm anyone else. But, if the only reason you want to keep firearms is for those hobbies, then what if we restricted firearms to specifically those hobbies? If that's all we want them for, then we could have it illegal to privately own firearms, and you could just rent them when you go to enjoy your hobby.
[B]Gun ownership as a means of defense against tyranny[/B]
Of course, that's not all we want them for. Another prominent reason is to revolt against a potential future tyrannical government. This makes a lot of sense, I certainly want to be able to revolt if a government is threatening my basic liberties to life and happiness. However, I think in today's society, the adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" rings truer than ever. Back when the U.S.'s Constitution was written, the caution was taken (and rightfully so) because in those times it was completely viable for a revolutionary force to compete against a government one; musket on musket, even untrained civilians could fight hard and long enough to spread the word for the cause and successfully overthrow the government.
Today's situation is much different, however, and the writers of the Constitution knew it was possible that it would be; they wrote that document knowing it was imperfect and knowing that changes would have to be made in the future, and so they allowed it to be amended. Today, first and most obviously, private gun owners stand no chance against the United States military. That much is clear. So at the very worst-case scenario, the right to bear arms does nothing against a tyrant who commands the military against the people. So I want you to look at the possibility of a revolt - with no private citizens owning firearms. A mob of people in a city somewhere decides enough is enough, and they break out baseball bats, crowbars, molotov cocktails, hell, even just their fists. Most importantly, however, they break out their cell phones. Their laptops and computers. The moment a rebellion begins, knowledge of it [I]will[/I] spread like wildfire across the country. And if it's a legitimate cause, others will join.
So now we have millions of people engaging in streetfights with law enforcement and the military. But for how long? Members of the military are just like civilians, and when they get out of the military they hope to enjoy the same lives as civilians. I'm in the military, and believe me, tyrants in Washington don't have complete control over it. The military isn't made up of robots; it's people with civilian families and friends. At first, the military may be trying to contain rebel forces, but they won't do it lethally, at least not on a large scale. They won't commit genocide against fellow Americans because of some talking heads on capitol hill. A legitimate revolt will at the very least cause the military to fracture in support of it, and suddenly we have a very winnable civil war.
This is my point. The fact is that for the defense that the NRA likes to spout about guns protecting us from government, it's just not true. Social media caused successful uprisings in the Middle East in countries with even worse human rights records and more censorship than our own. Guns didn't do that for them, the pen did. A legitimate rebellion will be seen as such; privately armed firearms just aren't necessary. Or if you really think they are, then gun rights need to be expanded so that private citizens can actually go toe-to-toe with the military, or else it is pointless.
[B]Gun ownership because I'm not using them for misdeeds[/B]
"Gun control advocates are only taking guns away from people who actually abide by the law - not the criminals using guns for crime in the first place."
This is the one area that I'm still iffy about. I need to look more into statistics in countries like the U.K. where gun control is the policy.
However, I still have points to be made. First, that quote, that gun control law won't affect criminals because they're criminals, is just garbage. If you don't think legislation and enforcement helps cut down crime, then why have laws at all? Just remove traffic lights and assume people will be courteous enough to slow down at intersections. Of course there are criminals, but laws and punishment is there to deter that, obviously. We've outlawed grenades, and I don't hear about too many criminals tossing those into malls. Of course people acquire them, but we can still make it extremely difficult for them to, and law enforcement will still be able to fight back. [B]I'm absolutely open to statistics on this part of the gun control debate though.[/B] I mostly want to look at violent crime rates involving firearms between countries with varying degrees of gun control legislation.
Per Wikipedia quoting Home Office crime statistics: "For 2010/11, police in England and Wales recorded 648 offences as homicides, of which 58 (9%) involved the use of firearms — a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. The number of homicides per year committed with firearms in England and Wales remained between 39 and 81 in the nine years to 2010/11, with an average of 58.3 per year. During the same time period, there were three fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales, and 149 non-fatal shootings, an average of 16.5 per year." An average of 58.3 fatal shootings in the U.K. per year, for a decade. Proportionally, that would be 290.88 fatal shootings per year in the U.S. In the United States on the other hand, during the 8 years from 2003 to 2010, the average number of homicides committed using firearms was 12,346.38 according to FICAP.
I've also been typing for quite a while and am starting to lose my train of thought, but I'm looking forward to retorts. I'm not advocating an immediate confiscation of everyone's firearms, though. I'm not debating about how realistic it would be to try that. This is just about who's right about gun control.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39422715]Can I please say that this is the worst argument for anything regardless of the topic at hand? Everyone throws around "it's my right to _______" but really, is it? How are we determining rights? Rights are always being expanded, restricted, given, and taken away, because as a society we learn over time what is good for society and what is not. As a society, we have learned through hundreds of years and millions of research studies that there is absolutely no benefit to smoking tobacco and only drawbacks, so why can't we, as a society, decide that it has no place in our country? It's like brass knuckles or hollow point bullets - we clearly all can agree that the only practical use of them is for something negative (fistfights and shooting through body armor, and deer/shooting range targets don't wear body armor). So we banned them. We passed a law that let everyone know, okay - these are not okay to have. If you do have them, you will be prosecuted. Sure, criminals still manage to obtain them, but do you honestly think the problem would be no better without legislation in place to allow law enforcement to arrest offenders?
It's absolutely foolish to arbitrarily determine rights solely because there are activities that [I]some people enjoy,[/I] especially when those activities objectively serve no good purpose.
[/quote]
Well, for starters, you clearly have no understanding of what hollow point bullets are. HPs are less likely to go through armour than full metal jacket bullets because they deform and expand upon impact with soft tissue or body armour. They have a use; in hunting and self defence. Because they expand they create larger wound channels, leading to a quicker death, perfect for both as you don't want game getting away to only bleed to death an hour later, and you want someone trying to kill you to drop dead in their tracks. They are also less likely to over penetrate as when they deform they become less aerodynamic.
If we removed things because they served "no good purpose" this would be a very bleak world. The world is full of useless things that probably cause more harm than good. If you're in that mindset I'm not even going to bother debating it. It's retarded.
Why have any rights at all? All they do is make people happy! We should just lock everyone in ap added cell where no harm can come to then or others!
[quote]
[B]Gun ownership as a hobby[/B]
You are correct. Shooting guns at a range and hunting are certainly both hobbies that almost never harm anyone else. But, if the only reason you want to keep firearms is for those hobbies, then what if we restricted firearms to specifically those hobbies? If that's all we want them for, then we could have it illegal to privately own firearms, and you could just rent them when you go to enjoy your hobby.
[/quote]
Rent them, pay lots of money to do so, can't use them outside of a few select ranges, can't have my own and set it up the way I want it. That's before you get to the part that someone still posseses it, and that you can;t defend yourself with it if it's locked in an armoury at a gun range a long way away
[quote]
[B]Gun ownership as a means of defense against tyranny[/B]
Of course, that's not all we want them for. Another prominent reason is to revolt against a potential future tyrannical government. This makes a lot of sense, I certainly want to be able to revolt if a government is threatening my basic liberties to life and happiness. However, I think in today's society, the adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" rings truer than ever. Back when the U.S.'s Constitution was written, the caution was taken (and rightfully so) because in those times it was completely viable for a revolutionary force to compete against a government one; musket on musket, even untrained civilians could fight hard and long enough to spread the word for the cause and successfully overthrow the government.
Today's situation is much different, however, and the writers of the Constitution knew it was possible that it would be; they wrote that document knowing it was imperfect and knowing that changes would have to be made in the future, and so they allowed it to be amended. Today, first and most obviously, private gun owners stand no chance against the United States military. That much is clear. So at the very worst-case scenario, the right to bear arms does nothing against a tyrant who commands the military against the people. So I want you to look at the possibility of a revolt - with no private citizens owning firearms. A mob of people in a city somewhere decides enough is enough, and they break out baseball bats, crowbars, molotov cocktails, hell, even just their fists. Most importantly, however, they break out their cell phones. Their laptops and computers. The moment a rebellion begins, knowledge of it [I]will[/I] spread like wildfire across the country. And if it's a legitimate cause, others will join.
So now we have millions of people engaging in streetfights with law enforcement and the military. But for how long? Members of the military are just like civilians, and when they get out of the military they hope to enjoy the same lives as civilians. I'm in the military, and believe me, tyrants in Washington don't have complete control over it. The military isn't made up of robots; it's people with civilian families and friends. At first, the military may be trying to contain rebel forces, but they won't do it lethally, at least not on a large scale. They won't commit genocide against fellow Americans because of some talking heads on capitol hill. A legitimate revolt will at the very least cause the military to fracture in support of it, and suddenly we have a very winnable civil war.
This is my point. The fact is that for the defense that the NRA likes to spout about guns protecting us from government, it's just not true. Social media caused successful uprisings in the Middle East in countries with even worse human rights records and more censorship than our own. Guns didn't do that for them, the pen did. A legitimate rebellion will be seen as such; privately armed firearms just aren't necessary. Or if you really think they are, then gun rights need to be expanded so that private citizens can actually go toe-to-toe with the military, or else it is pointless.
[/quote]
So you go and say gun owners can't do anything against the might of the US military, then say a rambling mob with crowbars can? Sorry to break it to you, but uneducated peasants in quite a few countries significantly smaller than the US have kicked the US military with all it's might to the curb several times know (did you forget Vietnam, then Afghanistan, then Iraq?), and these groups were much smaller than the US military.
Social media may spark an uprising, but it does not enable it. You can't fight a war with Twitter and the razor sharp edge of your Macbook Air. You cite countries in the Middle East, saying social media freed them. That didn't happen. What freed them was several bloody civil wars that even now hasn't fixed everything wrong with their countries
[quote]
[B]Gun ownership because I'm not using them for misdeeds[/B]
"Gun control advocates are only taking guns away from people who actually abide by the law - not the criminals using guns for crime in the first place."
This is the one area that I'm still iffy about. I need to look more into statistics in countries like the U.K. where gun control is the policy.
However, I still have points to be made. First, that quote, that gun control law won't affect criminals because they're criminals, is just garbage. If you don't think legislation and enforcement helps cut down crime, then why have laws at all? Just remove traffic lights and assume people will be courteous enough to slow down at intersections. Of course there are criminals, but laws and punishment is there to deter that, obviously. We've outlawed grenades, and I don't hear about too many criminals tossing those into malls. Of course people acquire them, but we can still make it extremely difficult for them to, and law enforcement will still be able to fight back. [B]I'm absolutely open to statistics on this part of the gun control debate though.[/B] I mostly want to look at violent crime rates involving firearms between countries with varying degrees of gun control legislation.
I've also been typing for quite a while and am starting to lose my train of thought, but I'm looking forward to retorts.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that breaking one law doesn't harm someone (i.e. owning a gun) while others do (killing people, missing a red lighter etc). That's why one is illegal and the other is not
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39422715]
Per Wikipedia quoting Home Office crime statistics: "For 2010/11, police in England and Wales recorded 648 offences as homicides, of which 58 (9%) involved the use of firearms — a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. The number of homicides per year committed with firearms in England and Wales remained between 39 and 81 in the nine years to 2010/11, with an average of 58.3 per year. During the same time period, there were three fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales, and 149 non-fatal shootings, an average of 16.5 per year." An average of 58.3 fatal shootings in the U.K. per year, for a decade. Proportionally, that would be 290.88 fatal shootings per year in the U.S. In the United States on the other hand, during the 8 years from 2003 to 2010, the average number of homicides committed using firearms was 12,346.38 according to FICAP.
I've also been typing for quite a while and am starting to lose my train of thought, but I'm looking forward to retorts. I'm not advocating an immediate confiscation of everyone's firearms, though. I'm not debating about how realistic it would be to try that. This is just about who's right about gun control.[/QUOTE]
You can't just arbitrary compare two countries and go "Oh look one has more guns and more crime and the other has less guns and less crime, I'm right, see!"
Firstly, you need to compare crime before and after the ban. The UK has historically had very low levels of crime (particularly compared to the US), both before and after their gun ban, which if I remember correctly was in the early 90s.
Secondly, You can't compare the US and UK side-by-side. They are completely different countries. One has a massive gang and drug culture fuelled by an ineffective war on drugs leading to 2% of their population in prison and millions of non-violent drug offenders in jail, while actual violent offenders are set free. The other is a country with a relatively minor drug and gang problem
Actually, I can't source the numbers right now, but following the gun ban gun crime in the UK is up over 80% versus before it, and the UK is currently the most violent country in Europe based off of violent crime statistics.
I know that this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but I just don't agree with the people who say stuff like "Taking Guns because people killed others using them is a terrible idea. What if someone took your computer because people used them to watch child pornography?" and stuff like that, because Guns are used to shoot things. Computers can be used for other reasons, but a Gun's only use is to shoot things.
That's all I really gotta say.
[QUOTE=download;39422870]Well, for starters, you clearly have no understanding of what hollow point bullets are. HPs are less likely to go through armour than full metal jacket bullets because they deform and expand upon impact with soft tissue or body armour. They have a use; in hunting and self defence. Because they expand they create larger wound channels, leading to a quicker death, perfect for both as you don't want game getting away to only bleed to death an hour later, and you want someone trying to kill you to drop dead in their tracks. They are also less likely to over penetrate as when they deform they become less aerodynamic.
If we removed things because they served "no good purpose" this would be a very bleak world. The world is full of useless things that probably cause more harm than good. If you're in that mindset I'm not even going to bother debating it. It's retarded.
Why have any rights at all? All they do is make people happy! We should just lock everyone in ap added cell where no harm can come to then or others![/quote]
Self-defense, in my opinion, is a bit of a moot point when considering the rest of my argument. And you're not actually debating past the hollow point part; you're taking my argument to an extreme in order to bring out a ridiculousness that isn't there. I obviously haven't said a thing about taking away everyone's rights, only ones that actually [B]don't[/B] make anyone happier. The only way firearms make anyone happier is through recreational hobbies such as hunting and shooting ranges, which I mentioned can still go along with gun control.
[QUOTE=download;39422870]Rent them, pay lots of money to do so, can't use them outside of a few select ranges, can't have my own and set it up the way I want it. That's before you get to the part that someone still posseses it, and that you can;t defend yourself with it if it's locked in an armoury at a gun range a long way away[/quote]
As if you're not paying lots of money already to purchase firearms and ammo? The point is to make the hobby still accessible, even if slightly more expensive, but there are plenty of expensive hobbies, and firearms are already one of them. And the [I]entire point[/I] is so that can't use them outside select ranges, if all you want to do is hunt/shoot targets, that's all you need. Where else would you possible take them? "I can't have my own and set it up the way I want it." Ignoring that that statement just sounds childish, shooting ranges could probably have enough firearms and attachments to accommodate someone coming to rent one, and you don't need to own one.
And of course someone still possesses firearms, but if we limit it to hunting/shooting ranges, we much more easily control [I]who[/I] possess them. The employees at those places can be screened, strict rules put in place, anything you would normally see at any shooting range for that matter. No one that I know of has ever broken into an armory and stolen a bunch of weapons, so I think with the right procedures, letting firearms at shooting ranges get out of hand is a total non-issue. And I know you wouldn't be able to defend yourself if it's locked away, that's what this whole argument is about, isn't it?
[QUOTE=download;39422870]So you go and say gun owners can't do anything against the might of the US military, then say a rambling mob with crowbars can? Sorry to break it to you, but uneducated peasants in quite a few countries significantly smaller than the US have kicked the US military with all it's might to the curb several times know (did you forget Vietnam, then Afghanistan, then Iraq?), and these groups were much smaller than the US military.
Social media may spark an uprising, but it does not enable it. You can't fight a war with Twitter and the razor sharp edge of your Macbook Air. You cite countries in the Middle East, saying social media freed them. That didn't happen. What freed them was several bloody civil wars that even now hasn't fixed everything wrong with their countries[/quote]
Here you have actually completely misread what I said. I didn't say a rambling mob with crowbars can fight the U.S. military better than an armed mob, I said both would be equally ineffective because they both stand no chance. I did state, however, that the very action of an uprising, no matter the weapon, would create a social media frenzy. And putting words in my mouth, I didn't claim you could fight a war with Twitter, quit being an idiot. You're absolutely right, what freed the people of the Middle East was a bloody civil war. But if you're going to deny that social media was without a doubt the biggest reason for the fast and sweeping rebellion across the region then you're lying to yourself. It's very well-known that social media caused those people to unite for their cause, just as would happen in the U.S. if the people started rioting in the streets, whether they had guns or not. The military, at least sizable parts of it, would join them, and then you have your bloody civil war for freedom. To say it hasn't fixed everything that's wrong with their countries is to point out the obvious, but no one in their right mind would say they aren't better off now.
[QUOTE=download;39422870]The difference is that breaking one law doesn't harm someone (i.e. owning a gun) while others do (killing people, missing a red lighter etc). That's why one is illegal and the other is not[/quote]
The difference, actually, is that things like cars are vital parts of our society that actually [I]do[/I] provide huge benefits, so of course we have to allow them because it wouldn't make any sense not to. But if privately owning firearms doesn't provide any benefits, but does have negative consequences, then it's net contribution is bad.
[QUOTE=download;39422870]You can't just arbitrary compare two countries and go "Oh look one has more guns and more crime and the other has less guns and less crime, I'm right, see!"
Firstly, you need to compare crime before and after the ban. The UK has historically had very low levels of crime (particularly compared to the US), both before and after their gun ban, which if I remember correctly was in the early 90s.
Secondly, You can't compare the US and UK side-by-side. They are completely different countries. One has a massive gang and drug culture fuelled by an ineffective war on drugs leading to 2% of their population in prison and millions of non-violent drug offenders in jail, while actual violent offenders are set free. The other is a country with a relatively minor drug and gang problem[/QUOTE]
I already stated, in bold, that I was quite open to this aspect of the debate. I wasn't arbitrarily comparing statistics between two countries; I was comparing the number of gun homicides in one country with comparatively lax gun laws to the number of gun homicides in one with comparatively strict gun laws. Is that not a valid comparison? Of course they are completely different, but that's why I asked for more statistics, because I am genuinely curious in seeing the effects of gun laws as far as gun-related crime only goes.
[B]And please, you're getting really worked up and saying things like "that's retarded" and other really condescending remarks that have no place in a civil debate forum.[/B] I know this is a sensitive issue, but please don't take it personally, I'm trying to just have a civil analysis of the matter. Unnecessary comments like those don't add anything, especially when I haven't said anything to provoke it, it just really makes me not want to come here.
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;39423021]I know that this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but I just don't agree with the people who say stuff like "Taking Guns because people killed others using them is a terrible idea. What if someone took your computer because people used them to watch child pornography?" and stuff like that, because Guns are used to shoot things. Computers can be used for other reasons, but a Gun's only use is to shoot things.
That's all I really gotta say.[/QUOTE]
This is a big point I try to make when people start comparing it to things like drunk drivers and such, like "why don't you take away our cars then, huh?!?" People don't think of the implications.
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39422942]Actually, I can't source the numbers right now, but following the gun ban gun crime in the UK is up over 80% versus before it, and the UK is currently the most violent country in Europe based off of violent crime statistics.[/QUOTE]
I would very much like to see the numbers for that and any other countries, really. I think an important statistic to look at would be violent crime involving firearms versus violent crimes total, and comparing that between countries with varying degrees of gun control.
[QUOTE=download;39422870]-argument-[/QUOTE]
Also I might add that in fact there is no correlation between violent crime and gun ownership, at least on an international scale as was shown in an earlier posted chart in which some countries had high gun ownership and high crime, some low gun ownership and high crime, some high gun ownership low crime, etc.
So really comparing any country with the US in terms of the subject matter is undoable.
[editline]30th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;39423021]I know that this is probably a very unpopular opinion, but I just don't agree with the people who say stuff like "Taking Guns because people killed others using them is a terrible idea. What if someone took your computer because people used them to watch child pornography?" and stuff like that, because Guns are used to shoot things. Computers can be used for other reasons, but a Gun's only use is to shoot things.
That's all I really gotta say.[/QUOTE]
Well you see, what you provided as to what guns do is... the plain truth as I'd describe it, whereas you described what computers do contextually.
Guns are designed to use a fast-combusting compound/mixture to create enough pressure to propell a bullet down a rifled barrel which spins the bullet, adding stability as it flies out of the barrel and towards... well I won't tell you, all I can say is that a gun is for shooting things, I won't tell you for shooting WHAT.
It could be shooting an innocent person, yes. Or it can be shooting a deranged man with a hammer. It could be shooting a can at a shooting range, or a deer in the woods. It could be shooting a mountainside to cause a controlled avalanche (with bigger guns like recoilless rifles). It could be building a country.
Now lets look at computers. Computers are designed to run an electrical current through billions of tiny silicon pathways on a small chip. According to where the pathways end and where they decide to go, the computer can be used to achieve a multitude of tasks, just like a gun. In fact, it is even more complex and versatile than a gun. But wait, the electricity isn't deciding where to go! The user is. The user could direct the charge to communicate with a server some thousand miles away and watch child porn. The user could direct the charge to communicate with a server at a university to upload a scholarly article. The user could direct the charge to build a website... or destroy one via hacking.
That being said, yes, when you bring it down to its basics, a gun is just for shooting things. But shooting what? Innocent civilians? Non-innocent criminals? A metal target at a sports competition? A moose in the Alaskan tundra?
And likewise, when you bring it down to its basics, a computer is just for running electricity through True/False gates. But what does this achieve? A piece of digital art? A piece of software? A crappy drawing through MS paint? A passionate and angry debate post on an obscure gaming forum? Or the destruction of data, the malicious manipulation of other people's computers to DDoS a website?
Who the hell knows? I'll tell you who: the user.
[editline]30th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39423053] And putting words in my mouth, I didn't claim you could fight a war with Twitter, [I]quit [B]being an [U]idiot[/U][/B][/I]. [/quote]
[quote]
[B]And please, you're getting really worked up and saying things like [B][U]"that's retarded"[/U][/B] and other really condescending remarks [B][U]that have no place in a civil debate forum.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
I can't hear you with your foot in your mouth, kind sir :v:
EDIT:
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;39423165]Thank you, I now understand why people are getting all [B][U][I]up in-arms[/I][/U][/B] about their gun rights.[/QUOTE]
heh.
Heheh.
HEHEH
HUEHUEHUE
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39423082]-amazingly great post-[/QUOTE]
Thank you, I now understand why people are getting all up in-arms about their gun rights.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39423082]I can't hear you with your foot in your mouth, kind sir :v:[/QUOTE]
I know that I said that, and I said it because I was getting frustrated with immediately getting bombarded by him with condescending and rude remarks after writing a post that didn't warrant any of it. Unfortunately I won't be able to reply until I get off work tomorrow, but I'm looking forward to more responses. I'll try to get to yours too, but I'm on my phone right now.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39423053]Self-defense, in my opinion, is a bit of a moot point when considering the rest of my argument. And you're not actually debating past the hollow point part; you're taking my argument to an extreme in order to bring out a ridiculousness that isn't there. I obviously haven't said a thing about taking away everyone's rights, only ones that actually [B]don't[/B] make anyone happier. The only way firearms make anyone happier is through recreational hobbies such as hunting and shooting ranges, which I mentioned can still go along with gun control.[/quote]
I'm not bring out any ridiculousness, I'm just point out you seem to have no knowledge of the subject, or at the very least, limited knowledge. I'm am also debating pas the HP bullets part. I explained you have a whacked up sense of rights and that it isn't worth arguing with you over.
It makes me happier knowing I can defend myself, your idea also falls short with hunting, seeing as you don't hunt on a range
[/quote]
As if you're not paying lots of money already to purchase firearms and ammo? The point is to make the hobby still accessible, even if slightly more expensive, but there are plenty of expensive hobbies, and firearms are already one of them. And the [I]entire point[/I] is so that can't use them outside select ranges, if all you want to do is hunt/shoot targets, that's all you need. Where else would you possible take them? "I can't have my own and set it up the way I want it." Ignoring that that statement just sounds childish, shooting ranges could probably have enough firearms and attachments to accommodate someone coming to rent one, and you don't need to own one.[/quote]
Yes, and I would be paying even more having to buy and rent from a reseller who needs to make a profit. It's hardly childish to say you want something set up for you. [I]everyone is different.[/I] Not to mention it takes a lot of time to set a gun up the way you want it and need it for whatever you're competing in, AND knowing the previous user didn't abuse the gun potentially damaging it. Have you ever been to do something where you had to rent gear? It's always in a horrible condition because people don't maintain it properly. You also once again failed to explain how hunting works with this
[quote]
And of course someone still possesses firearms, but if we limit it to hunting/shooting ranges, we much more easily control [I]who[/I] possess them. The employees at those places can be screened, strict rules put in place, anything you would normally see at any shooting range for that matter. No one that I know of has ever broken into an armory and stolen a bunch of weapons, so I think with the right procedures, letting firearms at shooting ranges get out of hand is a total non-issue. And I know you wouldn't be able to defend yourself if it's locked away, that's what this whole argument is about, isn't it?[/quote]
Yes, because what you personally know decided how every thing's done. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, putting every gun in the same place is a bad idea? It basically means you only have to rob one place to get thousands of guns! And yes, people break into armouries. It happens.
Yes, being able to defend myself is [I]one[/I] component of this of many. I can't defend myself if my gun is locked up a long way away. I also can;t go hunting with it if it's at a range.
[quote]
Here you have actually completely misread what I said. I didn't say a rambling mob with crowbars can fight the U.S. military better than an armed mob, I said both would be equally ineffective because they both stand no chance. I did state, however, that the very action of an uprising, no matter the weapon, would create a social media frenzy. And putting words in my mouth, I didn't claim you could fight a war with Twitter, quit being an idiot. You're absolutely right, what freed the people of the Middle East was a bloody civil war. But if you're going to deny that social media was without a doubt the biggest reason for the fast and sweeping rebellion across the region then you're lying to yourself. It's very well-known that social media caused those people to unite for their cause, just as would happen in the U.S. if the people started rioting in the streets, whether they had guns or not. The military, at least sizable parts of it, would join them, and then you have your bloody civil war for freedom. To say it hasn't fixed everything that's wrong with their countries is to point out the obvious, but no one in their right mind would say they aren't better off now.
[/quote]
How do they stand no chance? As I said, peasants without any air support and old rusting AKs have consistently, time and time again have defeated the US military, so I would say they have a chance. More so of a chance than those without weapons.
I'm not denying Social Media had a part in it. If you bothered to read what I said; [i]social media triggered it[/i]. It however does not win wars. I was saying Twitter as a euphemism for social media, phones, whatever the fuck you use.
I never said they weren;t better off now, just that it would never have happened if they did fight a bloody war
[quote]
The difference, actually, is that things like cars are vital parts of our society that actually [I]do[/I] provide huge benefits, so of course we have to allow them because it wouldn't make any sense not to. But if privately owning firearms doesn't provide any benefits, but does have negative consequences, then it's net contribution is bad.
[/quote]
I don't see what that has to do with what I was discussing
[quote]
I already stated, in bold, that I was quite open to this aspect of the debate. I wasn't arbitrarily comparing statistics between two countries; I was comparing the number of gun homicides in one country with comparatively lax gun laws to the number of gun homicides in one with comparatively strict gun laws. Is that not a valid comparison? Of course they are completely different, but that's why I asked for more statistics, because I am genuinely curious in seeing the effects of gun laws as far as gun-related crime only goes.
[/quote]
No, it's not a valid comparison, as stated, they are completely different countries and you can't compare them without considering the many differences and issues between them
[quote]
[B]And please, you're getting really worked up and saying things like "that's retarded" and other really condescending remarks that have no place in a civil debate forum.[/B] I know this is a sensitive issue, but please don't take it personally, I'm trying to just have a civil analysis of the matter. Unnecessary comments like those don't add anything, especially when I haven't said anything to provoke it, it just really makes me not want to come here.
[/quote]
It's quote justified to say some thing's retarded when you believe that things should be banned because their only purpose is enjoyment. It's so dumb it's not worth arguing with you over it
[quote]
This is a big point I try to make when people start comparing it to things like drunk drivers and such, like "why don't you take away our cars then, huh?!?" People don't think of the implications.
[/QUOTE]
And you are clearly not thinking of the implications of removing the hobby and security of millions of people.
[editline]31st January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39423299]I know that I said that, and I said it because I was getting frustrated with immediately getting bombarded by him with condescending and rude remarks after writing a post that didn't warrant any of it. Unfortunately I won't be able to reply until I get off work tomorrow, but I'm looking forward to more responses. I'll try to get to yours too, but I'm on my phone right now.[/QUOTE]
If pointing out the errors in your argument is condescending then too bad
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett]Having weapons at shooting ranges only[/QUOTE]
No. Just... no. They tried to pass some similar laws here (Italy, btw), and were promptly and angrily yelled at by [B]every single range owner[/B] (and every gun owner, for that matter).
Why? Because none of them had the land nor the money to build warehouses to store that many firearms. Also, they'd require 24/7 active surveillance, otherwise think if anyone managed to break into said storage. Not only it's pretty valuable materiel, but also very dangerous in the wrong hands. In addition, our gun laws allow the usage of firearms for home defense whenever lethal force is needed, and having them stored kilometers away from their owners kinda got in the way.
These laws were pretty much regarded as "insane logistic nightmare" and never got the chance to reach a single committee.
[QUOTE]The only way firearms make anyone happier is through recreational hobbies such as hunting and shooting ranges, which I mentioned can still go along with gun control.[/QUOTE]
Proper gun control, yes. But "ban nearly everything or at least don't allow private ownership of that stuff" is nowhere near proper.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39425760]
Proper gun control, yes. But "ban nearly everything or at least don't allow private ownership of that stuff" is nowhere near proper.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Proper goes as far as licensing, and that's about it
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39422942]Actually, I can't source the numbers right now, but following the gun ban gun crime in the UK is up over 80% versus before it, and the UK is currently the most violent country in Europe based off of violent crime statistics.[/QUOTE]
A source for this would be good. Plus you seem to be implying it went up due to the ban. Did it actually, or was something else to account for it?
Is the violent crime because of gun bans?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39425806]A source for this would be good. Plus you seem to be implying it went up due to the ban. Did it actually, or was something else to account for it?
Is the violent crime because of gun bans?[/QUOTE]
I found this, not sure about its accuracy though:
[img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6002/homicideratesnt9.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=download;39425902]I found this, not sure about its accuracy though:
[img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6002/homicideratesnt9.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
If those are accurate, they don't really seem to imply any correlation at all. Rates went up after the 1968 law, but went down after the Brady bill and AWB came into being.
As for the second, it looks as though the gun ban was in place for a decade before the significant spike.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39426026]If those are accurate, they don't really seem to imply any correlation at all. Rates went up after the 1968 law, but went down after the Brady bill and AWB came into being.
As for the second, it looks as though the gun ban was in place for a decade before the significant spike.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there is any corrolation. Data from many countries is all over the place
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39423082]Also I might add that in fact there is no correlation between violent crime and gun ownership, at least on an international scale as was shown in an earlier posted chart in which some countries had high gun ownership and high crime, some low gun ownership and high crime, some high gun ownership low crime, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I have to applaud the naive nature of the popular opinion here. You think taking legally registered guns away is going to solve anything? Whens the last time you got robbed by someone with a legally registered gun? I don't give a shit what happens up there on the hill where they have 24/7 secret service protection. Let me see them use a small caliber pistol limited to 7 rounds. I reported my guns stolen and burried them. I'm not giving shit up. is it a coincidence that most people who are for gun control live in high income areas? I want you to get stuck up and robbed at gunpoint before you talk about gun control. If someone comes into my house trying to take from me and my family, thats a done deal. I don't give a shit if I do life in prison my family is not going to be at risk.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;39427231]I have to applaud the naive nature of the popular opinion here. You think taking legally registered guns away is going to solve anything? Whens the last time you got robbed by someone with a legally registered gun? I don't give a shit what happens up there on the hill where they have 24/7 secret service protection. Let me see them use a small caliber pistol limited to 7 rounds. I reported my guns stolen and burried them. I'm not giving shit up. is it a coincidence that most people who are for gun control live in high income areas? I want you to get stuck up and robbed at gunpoint before you talk about gun control. If someone comes into my house trying to take from me and my family, thats a done deal. I don't give a shit if I do life in prison my family is not going to be at risk.[/QUOTE]
This is a place for debate, not rhetoric.
Like, are you really sure that people who are for gun control live in high income areas? Is there a correlation?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39428839]This is a place for debate, not rhetoric.
Like, are you really sure that people who are for gun control live in high income areas? Is there a correlation?[/QUOTE]
No he's talkign about [B]24/7 Secret Service[/B] on a [B]Hill[/B]
he's talking about the government (Capitol Hill?)
[QUOTE=download;39423690]I'm not bring out any ridiculousness, I'm just point out you seem to have no knowledge of the subject, or at the very least, limited knowledge. I'm am also debating pas the HP bullets part. I explained you have a whacked up sense of rights and that it isn't worth arguing with you over.[/quote]
You are right, I was wrong about HP rounds, can you tell me which bullets I was thinking of?
I'm trying to explain my "whacked up" sense of rights, but you keep saying things like this:
[quote]It's quote justified to say some thing's retarded when you believe that things should be banned because their only purpose is enjoyment. It's so dumb it's not worth arguing with you over it[/quote]
Rather than trying to understand where I'm coming from, you keep trying to throw what I'm saying out the window when I'm not saying anything like that; no one in their right mind ever would want something banned because its only purpose is enjoyment. I'm attempting to explain a way that gun hobbies can still be enjoyed alongside a ban of privately-owned firearms and how that might be possible in the hopes that such a ban would, in fact, lower gun crimes while still keeping people safe. I implore you not to think of this as a "me vs. you" argument, but instead try working with me here to see if something like this would be possible, if not in America.
So in the hopes of a little more of a friendly and enlightening debate for both sides, I'll continue with my idea here:
[quote]It makes me happier knowing I can defend myself, your idea also falls short with hunting, seeing as you don't hunt on a range[/quote]
I know hunting is a little more complicated than limiting people to a shooting range, which is why I was thinking that guns being rented out could be equipped with trackers so that they aren't easily smuggled out of a designated hunting park/area. I know you're happier knowing you can defend yourself. I am too, but the goal here is to disarm everyone to lessen gun crime, not focus on law-abiding citizens. (I know the statistics you've looked at might not show any correlation, but for the sake of this argument, let's pretend they do for now.)
[quote]Yes, and I would be paying even more having to buy and rent from a reseller who needs to make a profit. It's hardly childish to say you want something set up for you. [I]everyone is different.[/I] Not to mention it takes a lot of time to set a gun up the way you want it and need it for whatever you're competing in, AND knowing the previous user didn't abuse the gun potentially damaging it. Have you ever been to do something where you had to rent gear? It's always in a horrible condition because people don't maintain it properly. You also once again failed to explain how hunting works with this[/quote]
I know it would become a more expensive hobby, but assuming such a ban did help lower gun crime by a significant amount, I say that it would be worth it. The hobby would still be accessible, and public safety would be higher. Like I said about setting your gun up the way you like it, I'm sure these establishments could provide attachments for your firearms. And yes, I have been to places where you have to rent gear; I know that lots of their equipment is in horrible shape. Having said that, I think firearms and ice skates or bowling balls are completely different matters, and I think that would be reflected by the condition of the rental firearms. Shooting/hunting ranges could be legally required to disassemble, clean, and inspect all of the firearms after their use, and they should be required to, because firearms are obviously very dangerous, not like other rental places where all they have to do is make sure the go-kart has gas.
[quote]Yes, because what you personally know decided how every thing's done. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, putting every gun in the same place is a bad idea? It basically means you only have to rob one place to get thousands of guns! And yes, people break into armouries. It happens.[/quote]
This, I think, is something we'd need to look into. If shooting/hunting ranges were treated like police or national guard armories, I don't think break-ins would be an issue. They would have to be under constant surveillance, and the moment somebody started trying to get in we would have authorities on their way.
[quote]Yes, being able to defend myself is [I]one[/I] component of this of many. I can't defend myself if my gun is locked up a long way away. I also can;t go hunting with it if it's at a range.[/quote]
I hope I helped to answer these parts above.
[quote]How do they stand no chance? As I said, peasants without any air support and old rusting AKs have consistently, time and time again have defeated the US military, so I would say they have a chance. More so of a chance than those without weapons.
I'm not denying Social Media had a part in it. If you bothered to read what I said; [i]social media triggered it[/i]. It however does not win wars. I was saying Twitter as a euphemism for social media, phones, whatever the fuck you use.
I never said they weren;t better off now, just that it would never have happened if they did fight a bloody war[/quote]
The point I was trying to make here is that it doesn't matter whether or not an armed or unarmed mob stands any chance at all against the U.S. military, because they don't have to win a war. All they have to do is show that they're fighting and word will spread quickly enough that others will join the cause, and the factions of the military that agree with the cause (which, in the case of fighting against tyranny) will certainly join the rebellion. I don't believe firearms affects a revolt, because all that matters is the revolt itself, not how well the revolutionaries are fighting the military. Members of the military won't massacre their fellow citizens, they're normal people with families and friends that are most likely part of the rebellion.
[quote]No, it's not a valid comparison, as stated, they are completely different countries and you can't compare them without considering the many differences and issues between them[/quote]
I know that there are many differences between them, and I was asking for more data from more countries to see if there was any correlation. And if gun laws aren't raising\lowering the gun crime rate between countries, then of those many differences between them, what is? Something has to explain why one country would have higher rates of something than another country, and if gun laws aren't affecting it, then it's probably important to try to identify what is.
[quote]And you are clearly not thinking of the implications of removing the hobby and security of millions of people.[/quote]
I am thinking of the implications, and I'm trying to explain how I think this wouldn't remove that hobby and security.
[quote]If pointing out the errors in your argument is condescending then too bad[/QUOTE]
Pointing out errors in what I'm saying isn't condescending, it's helpful. All I ask is that you don't do it in a rude way. This is this forum's only attempt at having legitimate discussions about serious topics, and I would hate for people to be driven away from trying to have open discussion by hostility. I hope I've written this post in a manner that you'll be able to respond to in an equally respectful way. If not, then I tried, but I'll be done debating here.
I was never for banning guns, I was just misled on how american gun laws worked. I was told that you could buy a gun in any store without the need of a license. Of course its actually a lot more difficult than that.
Also I too thought fully automatic weapons were these devilish killing machines and while I still hold that true for some fully automatic weapons like a MG42 or any other light machine gun, I don't think AR15 or Klashnikov styled rifles with fully automatic capability are any worse than the standard semi automatic rifle. If anything some people have convinced me its better that these shootings happen with fully automatic weapons, the recoil launches the barrel in the air so you end up hitting nothing rather than taking well aimed placed shots which kill.
Banning high capacity magazines is just kinda unnecessary as it doesn't stop shootings just tries to make it more difficult for the shooter at the cost of every law abiding citizens right to own magazines more than 2 or 4 rounds.
More thorough backround checks would probably work to some degree and perhaps banning/outlawing the "Gun show loophole" where people can buy guns without a backround check. But ultimately I think its very right that people should be allowed to own guns if they needed to defend themselves (or because they just like and wanted guns).
[QUOTE=tr00per7;39436130]I was never for banning guns, I was just misled on how american gun laws worked. I was told that you could buy a gun in any store without the need of a license. Of course its actually a lot more difficult than that.[/QUOTE]
Quite a couple of states don't have licenses for firearms (which strikes me as rather bizarre, considering you need a license to drive a car or own a place that sells alcohol).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
