[QUOTE=download;39445617]Yes, they don't make them quiet like in the movie, negating any point in banning them. And no, you're wrong, they do make it queit enough to stop your ears ringing.
Yes they do, you need to be able to hear safety commands like "Stop shooting"
I'm using other countries as examples of places where suppressors are easy to get yet criminals aren't running around shooting people with them[/QUOTE]
I still value having a better chance of neighbors being awoken and calling the police about gunshots than your ears ringing. Certain firearms will still deafen you when equipped with silencers, there's a reason all of the demonstration videos feature people wearing ear protection while using them. And obviously shooting ranges have some sort of system worked out because silencers are illegal, everyone at shooting ranges wears ear protection, and they still manage to get "stop shooting" commands across to people, so that point is completely moot.
As for the other countries though, would you mind pointing me to some data that shows that criminals aren't using suppressors despite their being legal? It doesn't make sense to me that no one would have used something like that for illegal purposes where it's easily obtained.
Edit: Suppressors are already legal in 39 of the 50 states. It requires a thorough background check and costs $200 though.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39445350]No, I didn't answer my own question. Usually when someone's home is broken into, they want help; a silenced pistol isn't going to wake up the neighbors, and the cops won't be on their way. There's also the good chance that a gunshot scares off the home invaders. Silencers aren't useful for self-defense.[/QUOTE]
Sweet gods, you have no idea what you're talking about. A silenced gun is still loud, just not permanent-ear-damage loud. Heck, you even addressed it yourself:
[QUOTE]Not to mention [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw]silencers really don't make gunshots all that much quieter.[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh, and this:
[QUOTE]but that is one situation where you absolutely don't need silencers, because it's at a range. Earmuffs don't interfere with anything you would/should be doing at a shooting range.[/QUOTE]
makes me think you've never been at a range.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39446789]I still value having a better chance of neighbors being awoken and calling the police about gunshots than your ears ringing. Certain firearms will still deafen you when equipped with silencers, there's a reason all of the demonstration videos feature people wearing ear protection while using them. And obviously shooting ranges have some sort of system worked out because silencers are illegal, everyone at shooting ranges wears ear protection, and they still manage to get "stop shooting" commands across to people, so that point is completely moot.[/quote]
Jimhowl33t answer it well I think
[quote]
As for the other countries though, would you mind pointing me to some data that shows that criminals aren't using suppressors despite their being legal? It doesn't make sense to me that no one would have used something like that for illegal purposes where it's easily obtained.[/quote]
Easy, the media aren't going "man robbed with silenced gun!" or "armed robbery with silenced gun!"
[quote]
Edit: Suppressors are already legal in 39 of the 50 states. It requires a thorough background check and costs $200 though.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and we already knew that
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39447562]
makes me think you've never been at a range.[/QUOTE]
Agreed; it's like asking a person who's never driven a car to make road rules
The use of suppressors in crimes is extremely rare. [URL="http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf"]167 cases (not all of them convictions) in 1995-2005[/URL]. The use of a suppressor in a crime is punishable by a 30 year sentence minimum in federal prison.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39447562]Sweet gods, you have no idea what you're talking about. A silenced gun is still loud, just not permanent-ear-damage loud. Heck, you even addressed it yourself:[/quote]
You were kind of answering an older post, but here's what I had said since then: "I still value having a better chance of neighbors being awoken and calling the police about gunshots than your ears ringing. Certain firearms will still deafen you when equipped with silencers, there's a reason all of the demonstration videos feature people wearing ear protection while using them."
[quote]makes me think you've never been at a range.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Agreed; it's like asking a person who's never driven a car to make road rules[/QUOTE]
I have, actually. Numerous times before joining the military, and during basic military training. Suppressors are not necessities on shooting ranges. I know this, for one, because shooting ranges exist already without everyone having to use them and still operate perfectly. And secondly, because even with earmuffs on, you can still hear an extremely loud "STOP SHOOTING" buzzer go off. Suppressors are not necessary for the operation of shooting ranges.
[quote]Easy, the media aren't going "man robbed with silenced gun!" or "armed robbery with silenced gun!"[/quote]
Because me personally not hearing something from the media in another country means that it never happens. When I ask for evidence that something isn't being used in gun crimes, I'm asking for something like this:
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39450282]The use of suppressors in crimes is extremely rare. [URL="http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf"]167 cases (not all of them convictions) in 1995-2005[/URL]. The use of a suppressor in a crime is punishable by a 30 year sentence minimum in federal prison.[/QUOTE]
You know, a real study with real numbers. But the paper you linked, Disotrtion, focuses on the U.S., where silencer permits themselves are also very rare.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
I don't know how this discussion turned to solely suppressors. It's not really where I am trying to make my argument in gun control, I just disagreed with you about them.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39451313]You were kind of answering an older post, but here's what I had said since then: "I still value having a better chance of neighbors being awoken and calling the police about gunshots than your ears ringing. Certain firearms will still deafen you when equipped with silencers, there's a reason all of the demonstration videos feature people wearing ear protection while using them."[/quote]
Yes, because one videos proves everyone wears hearing protection
[quote]
I have, actually. Numerous times before joining the military, and during basic military training. Suppressors are not necessities on shooting ranges. I know this, for one, because shooting ranges exist already without everyone having to use them and still operate perfectly. And secondly, because even with earmuffs on, you can still hear an extremely loud "STOP SHOOTING" buzzer go off. Suppressors are not necessary for the operation of shooting ranges.[/quote]
Please tell us about your military service.
They might not be necessary but they are convenient. I've never been to a range with a buzzer before
[quote]
Because me personally not hearing something from the media in another country means that it never happens. When I ask for evidence that something isn't being used in gun crimes, I'm asking for something like this:
You know, a real study with real numbers. But the paper you linked, Disotrtion, focuses on the U.S., where silencer permits themselves are also very rare.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
I don't know how this discussion turned to solely suppressors. It's not really where I am trying to make my argument in gun control, I just disagreed with you about them.[/QUOTE]
Supressors are pretty common if you ask me. They're also incredibly easy to make. Anyone with basic lathe skills could make one in a few hours
[QUOTE=download;39457617]Yes, because one videos proves everyone wears hearing protection[/quote]
I actually looked through quite a few videos to listen to how loud some of the gunshots were, everyone was wearing ear protection. Although the uzi was surprisingly quiet.
[quote]Please tell us about your military service.[/quote]
can't tell if sarcastic or genuine
[quote]They might not be necessary but they are convenient. I've never been to a range with a buzzer before[/quote]
Out of all the times you have been to a range, have you ever experienced/witnessed any issues with needing people to cease fire? I mean, besides just having to walk over and get their attention or something. And suppressors could still be rented out.
[quote]Supressors are pretty common if you ask me. They're also incredibly easy to make. Anyone with basic lathe skills could make one in a few hours[/QUOTE]
I think that article said there were about 60,000 suppressor permits right now in the U.S. Compared to total private gun ownership, I think it's pretty rare.
Now put into factor the amount of unlicensed or oil filter suppressors that are out there.
I'm not going to preach the ease of manufacture, but...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ah0X92wdY[/media]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39457759]
can't tell if sarcastic or genuine
[/quote]
I'm quite serious. It's pretty easy to say on the Internet "I'm in the army", and i treat such claims with suspicion, especially going by your previous comments showing your lack of gun knowledge
[quote]
Out of all the times you have been to a range, have you ever experienced/witnessed any issues with needing people to cease fire? I mean, besides just having to walk over and get their attention or something. And suppressors could still be rented out.
[/quote]
Never know until it happens
[quote]
I think that article said there were about 60,000 suppressor permits right now in the U.S. Compared to total private gun ownership, I think it's pretty rare.[/QUOTE]
You sure that wasn't 60k suppressor permits approved this year? Because I was reading that in 2009 there were 30k suppressor tax stamps approved, and with the internet enabling people to find out they're actually legal, I can only guess the number has gone up dramatically
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
According to the ATF, they processed 137k NFA item transfer forms. According to thetruthaboutguns.com, 61% of those transfers were suppressors, so that's 84,000 suppressors, lets say half are new manufacture, that makes about 40k new suppressors ever year
[url]http://www.atf.gov/statistics/[/url]
[url]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/nfapie.jpg[/url]
27,000 suppressors are bought every year, so do some math...
[QUOTE=download;39458011]I'm quite serious. It's pretty easy to say on the Internet "I'm in the army", and i treat such claims with suspicion, especially going by your previous comments showing your lack of gun knowledge[/quote]
Oh, well you're right, I'm not in the Army, I'm in the Air Force. My facebook link should show that. Even if I think you being suspicious because you think I don't know any of what I'm talking about is a little ridiculous.
[quote]Never know until it happens[/quote]
Unless you can show me that it happens often enough to actually be a concern, then "never know until it happens" is not a valid argument for anything. Once more, suppressors could still be available along with rental firearms.
[quote]You sure that wasn't 60k suppressor permits approved this year? Because I was reading that in 2009 there were 30k suppressor tax stamps approved, and with the internet enabling people to find out they're actually legal, I can only guess the number has gone up dramatically
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
According to the ATF, they processed 137k NFA item transfer forms. According to thetruthaboutguns.com, 61% of those transfers were suppressors, so that's 84,000 suppressors, lets say half are new manufacture, that makes about 40k new suppressors ever year
[url]http://www.atf.gov/statistics/[/url]
[url]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/nfapie.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Ah, I thought I had read permits total. That's interesting, but it doesn't affect my overall stance on gun control.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39457807]Now put into factor the amount of unlicensed or oil filter suppressors that are out there.
I'm not going to preach the ease of manufacture, but...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ah0X92wdY[/media][/QUOTE]
The ease of DIY suppressors wouldn't matter if firearms were kept at the range.
My overall opinion on firearms is that, especially in the U.S., it needs to be all or nothing. I mean, if we're going to trust private citizens with owning firearms, everything needs to ultimately be available, because everything can be someone's hobby and someone's means of defense against tyranny. And if we're going to enforce any amount of gun control (beyond background checks, licensing, firearm safety education, etc.) then it needs to be near-absolute gun control (excluding cases where we have controlled environments, such as my shooting/hunting range examples). This is one issue that I could personally live with either way as long as there isn't some stupid, pointless middle ground, I just happen to believe that gun control would be a step forward. But it can and will be made to work either way. An AWB makes no sense, unless it's the beginning of an attempt to slowly chip away at gun rights, which is possible, although they didn't do it during the last AWB, so who knows.
Why does it have to be full gun control or no gun control?
That doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.
Well, there is no point continuing this discussion
I'm too lazy to read 15 pages, has anyone brought up the fact that gun violence and even mass murder in the U.S has been steadily declining? Sure, that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate better means of keeping guns out of lunatic's hands (which is hardly possible), but it does rule out other societal forces (like media).
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39458552]An AWB makes no sense, unless it's the beginning of an attempt to slowly chip away at gun rights, which is possible, although they didn't do it during the last AWB, so who knows.[/QUOTE]
That's a dick post right there
And sadly that is precisely what the AWB and capacity bans are about which is why they need to be shot dead in their tracks
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
Hey we should have an assault language ban so that we can slowly chip away at freedom of speech rights
Yea lets do that; i'm sure you'll be happy to back me lil_nooblet
After all thanks to a bunch of racist, scary-looking, children-hating free speech users talked shit about the Quran, a bunch of your buddies in the military are dead now aren't they
I don't think that gun controls is bad, period, it's definitely worked in Australia, but the forms that the Obama administration are putting into action are very, very bad. Instead of being based on substance and actual facts, they're based on scariness, and appearance. If they wanted to save lives, they'd ban all .22 pistols. They don't really care about preventing deaths, they care about their political appearance.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;39469961]I don't think that gun controls is bad, period, it's definitely worked in Australia, but the forms that the Obama administration are putting into action are very, very bad. Instead of being based on substance and actual facts, they're based on scariness, and appearance. If they wanted to save lives, they'd ban all .22 pistols. They don't really care about preventing deaths, they care about their political appearance.[/QUOTE]
Care to cite it worked in Australia?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39469068]Hey we should have an assault language ban so that we can slowly chip away at freedom of speech rights
Yea lets do that; i'm sure you'll be happy to back me lil_nooblet[/quote]
I had this whole thing typed up to try to explain to you how utterly stupid and incomparable those two things are, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort for the "oh so one right but not the other????????" reply I was bound to get, because that post was just astounding. Like, good job, I'll take my leave from this thread after that slam-dunk whopper of a post, well done. The amount of truly deep thought that required was somewhere between the average facebook fanpage and a Youtube comment on an Illuminati conspiracy video.
[quote]After all thanks to a bunch of racist, scary-looking, children-hating free speech users talked shit about the Quran, a bunch of your buddies in the military are dead now aren't they[/QUOTE]
I don't even know what the fuck this meant, like I want to be really, egregiously offended but I honestly have no idea what to think because suddenly it seems like I'm getting trolled
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39479308]
I don't even know what the fuck this meant, like I want to be really, egregiously offended but I honestly have no idea what to think because suddenly it seems like I'm getting trolled[/QUOTE]
He's saying rights don't matter and that we should ban things that kill people. Freedom of speech does kill people
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39479308]I had this whole thing typed up to try to explain to you how utterly stupid and incomparable those two things are, but I decided it wasn't worth the effort for the "oh so one right but not the other????????" reply I was bound to get, because that post was just astounding. Like, good job, I'll take my leave from this thread after that slam-dunk whopper of a post, well done. The amount of truly deep thought that required was somewhere between the average facebook fanpage and a Youtube comment on an Illuminati conspiracy video.
I don't even know what the fuck this meant, like I want to be really, egregiously offended but I honestly have no idea what to think because suddenly it seems like I'm getting trolled[/QUOTE]
You're not being trolled; those are actual adjectives I've seen anti-gun people use all around the internet
And what the hell is your problem? Are you REALLY in the military? Aren't you supposed to protect the Constitution? It doesn't matter if YOU think one right is more important than another, because from an objective standpoint, all the rights in the constitution are supposed to be inalienable and on equal footing.
Need I remind you that the amount of Facebook fanpages FOR gun control not only (probably) outnumber those of ones like Gun Control Kills, but also contain far much worse idiots than even the most radical of pro-gun posters?
Also, going back to your "chipping away at gun rights" comment, I was actually seriously offended by that. How do they let people like you serve in the military? You're supposed to fucking PROTECT the constitution, not undermine it. Now I wouldn't care if you just went about your business supporting stiff gun control but you EXPLICITLY STATED that you want to chip away at the constitution.
I don't even know why I care; I used to hate the US but now I like it for some reason.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
Also, SAYING that you've typed an essay pointing out all the bullshit in my statement doesn't make you look badass like you think it does
Well, I'm a sucker, so I'm sorry for saying I was taking my leave from the thread, because here I am once again, for some reason.
[QUOTE=download;39479552]He's saying rights don't matter and that we should ban things that kill people. Freedom of speech does kill people[/QUOTE]
That's cool; I figured after pages of debate we would have moved past this stupid, childish point where you keep making it sound like I'm trying to ban everything that kills people. Apparently not.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39479702]You're not being trolled; those are actual adjectives I've seen anti-gun people use all around the internet[/quote]
Also cool? Why would you use them here then? And mention my "dead buddies"? How is that relevant? It really pissed me off to quite a degree. I'm lucky enough to have not been in the Air Force long enough yet to have lost someone close, and further lucky that the Airmen have a lower casualty rate than the other branches, but even just making that reference is incredibly offensive to me. I have lots of friends in each branch, some of which are performing very risky jobs and I have known for years and would be pretty devastated if they were killed. I don't see any bearing that any third party has on this fucking debate about gun control. People on both sides say equally retarded things all the time, but I don't quote them to try to make a point against you. How about all the equally uninformed pro-gun advocates talking about how gun control supporters are responsible for the deaths of 20 six- and seven-year old children in Newtown? Is a subforum for serious discussion the place for me to bring up irrelevant and inflammatory remarks like that? No, it isn't, and you don't belong in here if you can't be respectful of other people's opinions, especially when they're presented in a respectful way.
[quote]And what the hell is your problem? Are you REALLY in the military? Aren't you supposed to protect the Constitution? It doesn't matter if YOU think one right is more important than another, because from an objective standpoint, all the rights in the constitution are supposed to be inalienable and on equal footing.[/quote]
Yes, I am. Not that I give any amount of fucks whether you believe me, I enlisted last year, and I'm an Airman First Class (that's an E-3) currently serving stateside. For you to question my loyalty as an anonymous dickhead on the internet is, once again, incredibly disrespectful and uncalled for. I affirmed the Oath of Enlistment proudly, and in doing so affirmed that I would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and I would obey the lawful orders of the President and the officers appointed over me. And I [B]do[/B] believe the patriotic thing to do is to criticize your country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? I've told you why I've formed the opinion I have on the second amendment.
Again, in case you've forgotten: the founding fathers included in the Constitution the ability to amend it. They knew it would need to be amended, to be made better and to adapt to a world that is always changing. You are aware that amendments (of which the second amendment is one) have been subsequently negated by later amendments? That's because nothing is written in stone; society is always evolving and advancing. It is of [B]my personal opinion[/B] that the second amendment is outdated. Does that mean I now am in violation of the Oath of Enlistment that I affirmed over a year ago? No, it fucking doesn't. I will protect everyone's rights. More importantly, I will protect everyone. The citizens of America are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [B]Those[/B] are inalienable rights and we, as a society, will determine how best those rights are protected. I can have an opinion on the goddamned amendments. That doesn't mean I don't respect them.
[quote]Need I remind you that the amount of Facebook fanpages FOR gun control not only (probably) outnumber those of ones like Gun Control Kills, but also contain far much worse idiots than even the most radical of pro-gun posters?[/quote]
Ignoring that you're just generalizing like an idiot here because of your own opinion, need I remind you that this thread in this subforum is not a facebook fanpage? It is specifically why I was pointing out how dumbfounded I was by the maturity level and intellect of your previous post, and volunteered to leave the thread. I come here expecting more than childish mocking, I expect a level-headed and respectful discussion because that's the whole point. That's why there are no ratings in this subforum, to promote open discussion and to keep people presenting ideas and getting bombarded with boxes. Congratulations on abusing the disappointing lack of moderation to make posts like that one, where you [I]actually quoted[/I] "far much worse [pro-gun control] idiots" in a supposedly serious debate forum to try to make a point about the general, uninformed population that was totally irrelevant to anything I had been saying.
[quote]Also, going back to your "chipping away at gun rights" comment, I was actually seriously offended by that. How do they let people like you serve in the military? You're supposed to fucking PROTECT the constitution, not undermine it. Now I wouldn't care if you just went about your business supporting stiff gun control but you EXPLICITLY STATED that you want to chip away at the constitution.[/quote]
Unbelievable. How do they let people like me serve in the military? People who [B]actually care about the safety and well-being of America's citizens?[/B] You realize I have only formed these opinions because I personally believe it is for the betterment of my country and its people? How dare you question that about me? I'm not pointing fingers and saying you don't care to protect the fucking Constitution because you haven't decided to serve. But because I have a differing opinion, you now disrespect my service to a country that I love for its open forums and bright minds. And if you had [B]actually taken the time to read the fucking quote,[/B] I never said "oooh, I hope they're just using the AWB to slowly chip away at gun rights!" I actually said literally just before that, that I completely disagree with a middle ground on gun control or banning weapons just because they look scary. [I]All I said[/I] was that the AWB makes no sense as far as getting gun control right goes, and speculated that perhaps it makes sense to them if they are using it to chip away at gun rights. Keep in mind, though, that the chipping away will come slowly, data will be collected, and in a worst-case scenario, if the government keeps restricting gun rights and the population becomes too enraged, OH MY GOD! YOUR WET DREAM COMES TRUE AND YOU CAN DEFEND YOUR GUN RIGHTS WITH YOUR GUNS. And you know what? [I]I would be on your side.[/I]
[quote]I don't even know why I care; I used to hate the US but now I like it for some reason.[/quote]
There seems to be a fair amount of irony here. Go ahead and keep questioning my loyalty to a country who's people I swore to risk my life to protect, though.
[quote]Also, SAYING that you've typed an essay pointing out all the bullshit in my statement doesn't make you look badass like you think it does[/QUOTE]
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/BCUq0kyCEAARFQx.jpg_large_.jpg[/img]
Am I a badass yet? What if I told you I wasn't wearing pants in that picture?
You are in no position to be berating him about maturity or respect, especially after that. While he was in no position to question your service, I would hope you should have learned something about respect, how to conduct yourself, and how to be the better man in the forces. Remember, you represent your country now as well, you're entitled to your opinion, including of the constitution, but be respectful about it, and if he's being an asshole, be the better man. It doesn't just reflect bad on you, it reflects bad on the Armed Forces and America as a whole. Right now this isn't a debate, it's not even an argument, it's a shit show.
As for the "people who actually care" comment, you make the implication that those in opposition of gun control don't care for the betterment of society, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Those who oppose gun control see firearms as a means of achieving a safer society, when placed in the right hands. Many also collect firearms, relics of the past, important pieces of history, works of art, marvels of engineering achievements, and reminders of atrocities that must never happen again, but are nevertheless important parts of the history of mankind.
As to the founding fathers and the constitution, the second is so high on the list for a reason, it is the means to defend all the other amendments, the first being higher because it guarantees people the right to organize and speak freely against a government who would take one's rights away. If you read quotes from many of the fathers, owning a gun and the 2nd were never things that would get outdated, they were not afterthoughts on the path towards the American dream, they were and still are a central and integral part of the free society. The second doesn't become outdated, and as Jefferson said it won't be needed until they try and take it. Some people argue about muskets and that the fathers would be terrified of tanks and assault rifles, but if you look at what they said about the amendment, if they were here today, they'd look at an M4 and ask "Why is the average citizen not allowed the same armaments as the military?" Due to what the principle of the amendment is. Some argue that the 2nd hasn't been necessary since there hasn't been a tyrannical government since the revolution, I would put forth the opposite, it's worked to keep the government in line for 200-some-odd years now, hasn't it?
If you're going to debate, then debate, don't question one's service to their country, don't act like a douche, and don't throw personal attacks around, it makes you look immature and rather than having the intended purpose of discrediting the opponent through public ridicule, it has the opposite effect, it makes you look like an asshole who is out of arguing points but won't admit defeat, so you resort to insults to try and discredit the opposition.
Stop trying to shame, degrade, or otherwise insult each other simply due to differing opinions, it's childish and adds nothing to the argument.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39480497]huge ass post[/QUOTE]
Wow; you know that was actually a well done post, I'll admit it, you beat me on this one
in all honesty I was a little too hotheaded just now; got a little too ad hominem even for my tastes :/
and you gave me a good laugh at the end too; I never thought I'd change my avatar
[QUOTE=download;39478892]Care to cite it worked in Australia?[/QUOTE]
We've got a gun homicide rate of 1.05, compared to America's 10.2, as well as a lower overall homicide rate (1.0 to 4.8)
As for specifics within Australia, the homicide rate dropped at a higher rate than it had been dropping previously (it was dropping for a while before), which may or may not be correlated. Overall, it's done fairly well.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;39481388]We've got a gun homicide rate of 1.05, compared to America's 10.2, as well as a lower overall homicide rate (1.0 to 4.8)
As for specifics within Australia, the homicide rate dropped at a higher rate than it had been dropping previously (it was dropping for a while before), which may or may not be correlated. Overall, it's done fairly well.[/QUOTE]
Simply comparing rates doesn't mean shit, as for saying it dropped at a faster rate:
[url]http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2008/2008-09-04_Australian-firearms-buyback-effect.pdf[/url]
Nope, nothing to suggest it had any effect
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39480863]You are in no position to be berating him about maturity or respect, especially after that. While he was in no position to question your service, I would hope you should have learned something about respect, how to conduct yourself, and how to be the better man in the forces. Remember, you represent your country now as well, you're entitled to your opinion, including of the constitution, but be respectful about it, and if he's being an asshole, be the better man. It doesn't just reflect bad on you, it reflects bad on the Armed Forces and America as a whole. Right now this isn't a debate, it's not even an argument, it's a shit show.[/quote]
You're right, I apologize for losing my bearing, but I am human, so you can understand that I would be reasonably upset when someone questions my loyalty like that. I did try my best to keep the entire discussion civil and on-topic, but I had just about had it. I was trying to make the point that stuff like that had no place in this forum, and I think I did, even if I could have done it more eloquently. I'm sorry though, I can respect that.
[quote]As for the "people who actually care" comment, you make the implication that those in opposition of gun control don't care for the betterment of society, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Those who oppose gun control see firearms as a means of achieving a safer society, when placed in the right hands. Many also collect firearms, relics of the past, important pieces of history, works of art, marvels of engineering achievements, and reminders of atrocities that must never happen again, but are nevertheless important parts of the history of mankind.[/quote]
I was considering actually elaborating on the "people who actually care" bit because I was afraid someone would take it that way, but what I meant to imply was that I have thought enough about an important issue to have a stance on it, rather than being someone who didn't care enough at all to even be informed about the subject. I know full well that gun control opponents are also making their arguments for the safety and well-being of the country, and I wasn't intending to imply that they didn't.
[quote]As to the founding fathers and the constitution, the second is so high on the list for a reason, it is the means to defend all the other amendments, the first being higher because it guarantees people the right to organize and speak freely against a government who would take one's rights away. If you read quotes from many of the fathers, owning a gun and the 2nd were never things that would get outdated, they were not afterthoughts on the path towards the American dream, they were and still are a central and integral part of the free society. The second doesn't become outdated, and as Jefferson said it won't be needed until they try and take it. Some people argue about muskets and that the fathers would be terrified of tanks and assault rifles, but if you look at what they said about the amendment, if they were here today, they'd look at an M4 and ask "Why is the average citizen not allowed the same armaments as the military?" Due to what the principle of the amendment is. Some argue that the 2nd hasn't been necessary since there hasn't been a tyrannical government since the revolution, I would put forth the opposite, it's worked to keep the government in line for 200-some-odd years now, hasn't it?[/quote]
I wouldn't make the argument that the second amendment isn't necessary just because we haven't had another tyrannical government, I think that's nonsense. As I've said previously, I feel that in the Information Age, word spreads quicker than ever, and nowadays the pen is truly mightier than the sword. I believe that the first amendment is very important for various reasons, but one is to allow people to stay in the mindset that the government can turn against you, and people should be able to freely and openly talk about whether it does. I don't believe that the founding fathers were fully aware of exactly what the future would be like, and would be blown away by the speed of communication today. I think that's our most important weapon. We actually say in the Air Force, "no comm, no bomb." And as you said, if they were around today, I think they would have one opinion or the other, no middle ground. Either they would agree with me, and say that firearms are no longer necessary in inciting a revolution against tyranny, or they would be on the complete opposite side and be asking why the private citizens are fooled into thinking they are capable of putting up a fight with the modern military when private citizens don't have access to the same armaments. And I would truly be okay with either side; I just happen to believe our society would be even just slightly better off without privately owned firearms.
[editline]5th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;39480905]Wow; you know that was actually a well done post, I'll admit it, you beat me on this one
in all honesty I was a little too hotheaded just now; got a little too ad hominem even for my tastes :/
and you gave me a good laugh at the end too; I never thought I'd change my avatar[/QUOTE]
Also, thank you for admitting that, not many people can man up that way over the internet.
I dont like guns, i certainly dont want them to be normal, and easily accesible in my country.
But making even some of the guns in america against the law, creates yet another black market, inviting street shootouts for territorial rights, creating alot of rich criminals, and generally doing the exact opposite of making america safer.
People who advocate for total abolishment of guns have never picked up a history book i think, prohibiting the trade of a commodity that is engrained in your culture, [B]generally fucks everything up.[/B]
People always seem to want to hurt the 99% because of the actions of the 1%.
Want to draw back to sandy hook? Yes, it's extremely sad that 20 some odd kids died. I practically cried, and death almost never makes me sad. HOWEVER. The shooter was mentally ill. He was also very young. He didn't go to a gangster and say "Hey my niqqah get me sum of zem top of the line shits, nigger son dog fuckah." and he didn't go to a gun store and say "Yes, I'm mentally sane, Lying, and want a gun to shoot target, Lying." The issue is that his mother did not follow the law. She left a firearm, and magazines, AND AMMUNITION, out and open for him. She did not lock her equipment up.
Honestly, it boils down to this. You want your kid to know how to use a gun, just in case? Fine. You want your kid to have the gun readily accessable, for feel? Know what, this is america. If you're really going to be fucked up, you do that. But PLEASE, for the love of ALL THAT IS SAFE. Lock your ammo up. Ammo goes in the lockbox, you know the password, nobody else does. Sorry lady, but your kid can't play with live ammo. Nononono.
Except, look at sandy hook. That's EXACTLY what happened. A mother, with a KNOWN mentally ill child, purchaced an AR-15, and left it out in the open, WITH LIVE AMMUNITION. That was begging for a fucking problem.
The problem isn't in gun laws. The problem isn't in law abiding citizens. So why are we hurting and changing what isn't the problem? The problem, is the people who BREAK the laws. Like the mother of the child in the sandy hook shooting. Like criminals and thugs, who buy illegal weapons every day.
The proper response to sandy hook? Shed some tears for a couple days. Build beautiful, flower and picture lined memorials, erect a statue in the town, and exactly two days later, DROP IT. Let the locals mourn for a couple weeks, and sadly, the parents for years to come. By focusing the media on it, we are telling all the other sick little children "HEY, WANT TO BE NOTCIED? SHOOT UP YOUR SCHHOOL, THAN KILL YOURSELF!!!" Not only that, but by pulling children up on a stage, and saying "I'm going to protect you from gunz UHURR DEYURR" we're literally giving more power to a 7 year old than to the voters. We, the people of the united states, are quite literally entrusting more power into a small child, than we are the voting public. Real logical, isn't it?
[QUOTE=Forester155;39504767]People always seem to want to hurt the 99% because of the actions of the 1%.
Want to draw back to sandy hook? Yes, it's extremely sad that 20 some odd kids died. I practically cried, and death almost never makes me sad. HOWEVER. The shooter was mentally ill. He was also very young. He didn't go to a gangster and say "Hey my niqqah get me sum of zem top of the line shits, nigger son dog fuckah." and he didn't go to a gun store and say "Yes, I'm mentally sane, Lying, and want a gun to shoot target, Lying." The issue is that his mother did not follow the law. She left a firearm, and magazines, AND AMMUNITION, out and open for him. She did not lock her equipment up.
Honestly, it boils down to this. You want your kid to know how to use a gun, just in case? Fine. You want your kid to have the gun readily accessable, for feel? Know what, this is america. If you're really going to be fucked up, you do that. But PLEASE, for the love of ALL THAT IS SAFE. Lock your ammo up. Ammo goes in the lockbox, you know the password, nobody else does. Sorry lady, but your kid can't play with live ammo. Nononono.
Except, look at sandy hook. That's EXACTLY what happened. A mother, with a KNOWN mentally ill child, purchaced an AR-15, and left it out in the open, WITH LIVE AMMUNITION. That was begging for a fucking problem.
The problem isn't in gun laws. The problem isn't in law abiding citizens. So why are we hurting and changing what isn't the problem? The problem, is the people who BREAK the laws. Like the mother of the child in the sandy hook shooting. Like criminals and thugs, who buy illegal weapons every day.
The proper response to sandy hook? Shed some tears for a couple days. Build beautiful, flower and picture lined memorials, erect a statue in the town, and exactly two days later, DROP IT. Let the locals mourn for a couple weeks, and sadly, the parents for years to come. By focusing the media on it, we are telling all the other sick little children "HEY, WANT TO BE NOTCIED? SHOOT UP YOUR SCHHOOL, THAN KILL YOURSELF!!!" Not only that, but by pulling children up on a stage, and saying "I'm going to protect you from gunz UHURR DEYURR" we're literally giving more power to a 7 year old than to the voters. We, the people of the united states, are quite literally entrusting more power into a small child, than we are the voting public. Real logical, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
This post makes little coherent sense, what is your argument?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39505819]This post makes little coherent sense, what is your argument?[/QUOTE]
He's saying to basically do nothing, just try to get everyone to not let people who shouldn't be around firearms, be around firearms. And when somebody gets ahold of one and kills a lot of people, get over it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
