[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433446]Air guns don't blow your foot off if you mishandle it, bows and arrows don't yield the maximum amount of dead people if someone decides to shoot up their school, and repeating that "most gun owners are responsible" doesn't change the fact that universal access to them means someone that shouldn't get their hands on one will. And even if it's true, "responsible" is a statement of values and not anything concrete.[/QUOTE]
Normally I'd justify a response to this same old silly argument but I honestly don't feel like regurgitating the same lines I've spouted out a hundred times before. you win i lose gg
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433446]Air guns don't blow your foot off if you mishandle it,
[/quote][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2SqGcdUJR8[/media][quote] bows and arrows don't yield the maximum amount of dead people if someone decides to shoot up their school[/quote][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g[/media][quote] and repeating that "most gun owners are responsible" doesn't change the fact that universal access to them means someone that shouldn't get their hands on one will.[/quote]the fact that they exist means someone that shouldn't have one will, the fact that they're illegal means someone that should have one won't[quote] And even if it's true, "responsible" is a statement of values and not anything concrete.[/QUOTE]
that's just downright stupid
I liked the video, I thought it was pretty objective. I agree with most posters that they did seem to seek out the most suspicious private sale they could find.
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;39431164]Australia's citizen's get on alright without guns, I can't see why America couldn't. Obviously a culture thing, embedded so deep in their minds with years and years of patriotic brain washing.[/QUOTE]
ethnocentric as fuck.
[QUOTE=OvB;39433265]All that justification and cars being a hobby and a fast killer Ferrari being "fun to drive" doesn't make you any less of a car nut.[/QUOTE]
yes exactly.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39433692]that's just downright stupid[/QUOTE]
Unbelievable how you guys can't handle a debate without calling your objector stupid or flying into a rage or just generally being assholes. You even have some good points I'm willing to concede but I won't divest myself of a minute to wade through the sea of pissy, choleric attitudes in the processes. Jesus.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39433331]I'd like you to find me a case in the US where a person was killed with a .50BMG. Nobody is going to shell out ~10 grand to buy a .50BMG and use it in a driveby. If someone pays the money for a .50BMG, he's using it for target shooting. Theres even a facepuncher that owns an M82 (I think) and as far as I know, he's not an insane lunatic plotting global destruction. It's a hobby thats no more dangerous than archery or air guns. Don't stereotype us as being insane because you don't understand it.[/QUOTE]
No I understand it. I never implied that anyone would use that big-ass sniper rifle to kill someone. And I very well know that pistols are mostly used in homicides. And it's not stereotyping to acknowledge that there are a lot of literal Gun-nuts here on Facepunch, and in the U.S., more so than in other countries.
But still, if any of my friends, or anyone, ever introduced me to their sniper rifle that could take down an passenger airplane, I would just say "holy shit you are crazy" for just owning the weapon.
Also I can believe that it's damn fun to shoot. And guns make for a fine hobby, I'm kind of interested in them myself, but not the same level of enthusiasm as some of you [b][i]gun-nuts[/i][/b].
If a friend ever showed me a rifle that could kill a passenger jet I'd cream my pants.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39433817]Also I can believe that it's damn fun to shoot. And guns make for a fine hobby, I'm kind of interested in them myself, but not the same level of enthusiasm as some of you [B][I]gun-nuts[/I][/B].[/QUOTE]
Literally most of the prominent pro-gun FP posters aren't gun nuts. So going "you gosh-durned [I][B]gun nuts[/B][/I]​" doesn't accomplish anything.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433804]Unbelievable how you guys can't handle a debate without calling your objector stupid or flying into a rage or just generally being assholes. You even have some good points I'm willing to concede but I won't divest myself of a minute to wade through the sea of pissy, choleric attitudes in the processes. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
I didn't call you stupid, I called one point you made stupid. it was entirely irrelevant and did nothing to further the argument.
the video itself is named "Gun Crazy USA" and you guys are basically saying there is no truth to that.
and it's not a negative thing really, to be a fucking "gun nut" it just comes down how excited/enthusiastic someone is about their certain hobby, to the point where it may seem ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433804]Unbelievable how you guys can't handle a debate without calling your objector stupid or flying into a rage or just generally being assholes. You even have some good points I'm willing to concede but I won't divest myself of a minute to wade through the sea of pissy, choleric attitudes in the processes. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
Pretty hypocritical coming from the guy who derided people with an opposing viewpoint as "redneck shitbirds" then later backpedaled claiming it was a sarcastic response. (FYI, it wasn't, no one is buying that explanation.)
I don't understand how you come to the table with such a belligerent mindset, then complain when people respond in kind. I mean your first post was just dripping with a pompous "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Your opinion, by the way, is incredibly superficial. "Guns can kill, thus guns are bad."
I don't think you have really thought out your opinion anyways, you state that responsibility is a statement of values (ok) and it can't be anything concrete. So? Responsible gun owners do two things 1. Know gun safety 2. follow the law. I could go about how it could be factually proven that most gun owners are responsible considering there are 60 million gun owners and like 11,000 firearm homicides per year and firearms are only involved in 7% of violent crimes. I cannot understand why you are so pedantic. You state something about a social contract, that doesn't really make much sense and I think you do not know what a social contract is. You take issue with universal access to firearms, something which literally everyone opposes, but you still saw fit to mention for some reason.
And then after you post this poorly thought out opinion, you don't defend it. Rather you abandon it.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433804]Unbelievable how you guys can't handle a debate without calling your objector stupid or flying into a rage or just generally being assholes. You even have some good points I'm willing to concede but I won't divest myself of a minute to wade through the sea of pissy, choleric attitudes in the processes. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, I think that my argument was countered in a respectable and informed way. Perhaps that is just because I presented mine without shit flinging myself (unlike you).
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39434135]Pretty hypocritical coming from the guy who derided people with an opposing viewpoint as "redneck shitbirds" then later backpedaled claiming it was a sarcastic response. (FYI, it wasn't, no one is buying that explanation.)
I don't understand how you come to the table with such a belligerent mindset, then complain when people respond in kind. I mean your first post was just dripping with a pompous "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Your opinion, by the way, is incredibly superficial. "Guns can kill, thus guns are bad."
I don't think you have really thought out your opinion anyways, you state that responsibility is a statement of values (ok) and it can't be anything concrete. So? Responsible gun owners do two things 1. Know gun safety 2. follow the law. I could go about how it could be factually proven that most gun owners are responsible considering there are 60 million gun owners and like 11,000 firearm homicides per year and firearms are only involved in 7% of violent crimes. I cannot understand why you are so pedantic. You state something about a social contract, that doesn't really make much sense and I think you do not know what a social contract is. You take issue with universal access to firearms, something which literally everyone opposes, but you still saw fit to mention for some reason.
And then after you post this poorly thought out opinion, you don't defend it. Rather you abandon it.[/QUOTE]
Don't take what I said and re-write it reductively to suit your understanding-- for a new page and a new audience. Simply saying it's superficial by claiming it was doesn't change my mind. Saying that gun owners are responsible because only 7% of people killed are killed by guns is like saying, I dunno, nuclear powered dildos are safe because only 7% of them caused fatal cancer. To say nothing of the fact that most weapon-related injuries are inflicted by handguns and therefore aren't fatal.
And the social contract is exactly what I said it was.
Controversially, I am going to abandon it because I can't sit here and try to chase after a dogpile of responses on my own, some of which make no actual response to what I said.
"your statement is incredibly stupid, i think i'll prove it by either restating my opinion or just bank on the fact that 5 other people will drown him in boxes and responses before he has the time"
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;39433533]I actually bought a Lee Enfield at night in a casino parking lot :v:[/QUOTE]
I bought an antique Mosin-Nagant that way.
Then I went to the buffet. And gambled away half my money, passed out piss-drunk in my hotel room, and woke up the next day with an awful hangover.
Vegas is fun.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;39434588]I bought an [B]antique [/B]Mosin-Nagant that way.[/QUOTE]
as opposed to what? you'd be hard pressed to find one made after 1950 or so
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39434650]as opposed to what? you'd be hard pressed to find one made after 1950 or so[/QUOTE]
pre-1900?
[QUOTE=devonjones;39434689]pre-1900?[/QUOTE]
if he was going by the legal definition of antique, antique mosins are pretty damn rare
It's cute how the countries with gun regulation think America is crazy for having such loose gun laws, and America thinks that countries with tight gun regulation are crazy.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39433804]I won't divest myself of a minute to wade through the sea of pissy, choleric attitudes in the processes. Jesus.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39432243]Sorry, I mean't to say redneck shitbirds.[/QUOTE]
hmm
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39430837]interesting video, but I thought it was funny how they tried to make the private sale look more sketchy by having them meet in a vacant parking lot at night.[/QUOTE]
Private sales are not regulated well enough, though. You're a responsible citizen, obviously you'll be dealing with other responsible citizens. There's a lot of non-responsible citizens out there, though.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39435880]Private sales are not regulated well enough, though. You're a responsible citizen, obviously you'll be dealing with other responsible citizens. There's a lot of non-responsible citizens out there, though.[/QUOTE]
I'd gladly take a gun out of the hands of a would be irresponsible citizen knowing that I will properly maintain, practice and store my firearm.
Bad people will buy shady guns through a shady market. I don't expect a hood-rat to buy a small handgun with a traceable serial for close to retail when he could just as easily steal one or buy one for super cheap from his buddies. Meeting in a parking lot and buying a registered firearm from a private citizen is not shady, legitimate gun owners pay asking price and make sure that they're getting a clean weapon. I would bet that any responsible gun owner purchasing a weapon through a private seller would contact authorities if the weapon or seller was suspicious at all. Sure it's shady-looking but buying something from craigslist is always shady, not because of what your buying but because people attach a stigma to meeting "strangers from the internet" to buy something.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39433817]No I understand it. I never implied that anyone would use that big-ass sniper rifle to kill someone. And I very well know that pistols are mostly used in homicides. And it's not stereotyping to acknowledge that there are a lot of literal Gun-nuts here on Facepunch, and in the U.S., more so than in other countries.
But still, if any of my friends, or anyone, ever introduced me to their sniper rifle that could take down an passenger airplane, I would just say "holy shit you are crazy" for just owning the weapon.
Also I can believe that it's damn fun to shoot. And guns make for a fine hobby, I'm kind of interested in them myself, but not the same level of enthusiasm as some of you [b][i]gun-nuts[/i][/b].[/QUOTE]
It's honestly adorable how you think owning a scawy evil baby killing 12.7x99mm rifle makes you inherently crazy. Seriously, that silly ignorance is what writes assault weapons ban because you think that we're crazy for owning one, simply because you don't understand it. Grow up.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39435880]Private sales are not regulated well enough, though. You're a responsible citizen, obviously you'll be dealing with other responsible citizens. There's a lot of non-responsible citizens out there, though.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I hope the gunshow loophole gets closed. But in the video they actively did their best to make it look as ~shady~ as possible, when most sales are nothing like that and they're between 2 responsible citizens.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39437050]I agree, I hope the gunshow loophole gets closed. But in the video they actively did their best to make it look as ~shady~ as possible, when most sales are nothing like that and they're between 2 responsible citizens.[/QUOTE]
Sensationalist media at it's finest.
If they want to report on guns and why gun regulation in the U.S. isn't perfect? Fine by me. But don't intentionally make shit look worse than it is.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;39434330]Don't take what I said and re-write it reductively to suit your understanding-- for a new page and a new audience.[/QUOTE]
Didn't re-write it. It's exactly what you said. IDK why you are retentive about when and where I posted. If any one wanted to reference our posts they could just, oh I don't know, [I]look at your original posts on the previous page[/I]. There is no malice here.
[QUOTE]Simply saying it's superficial by claiming it was doesn't change my mind.[/QUOTE]
I didn't just claim it was, I showed you it was.
[QUOTE] Saying that gun owners are responsible because only 7% of people killed are killed by guns is like saying, I dunno, nuclear powered dildos are safe because only 7% of them caused fatal cancer. To say nothing of the fact that most weapon-related injuries are inflicted by handguns and therefore aren't fatal.[/QUOTE]
You didn't even read my post.."firearms are only involved in 7% of violent crimes". That includes rape, assault, armed robbery etc. This includes all weapons, handguns shotguns, rifles, and includes incidents where people were wounded. It does not include homicide. Violent crime includes all violent gun crime except homicide. But we know there are 11,000 gun homicides per year. My point is you can statistically prove that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, and follow gun safety. Thus the majority are "responsible gun owners".
[QUOTE]And the social contract is exactly what I said it was.[/QUOTE]
It is both by definition and by common interpretation not what you said it was. The social contract is only between the individual and the state, not "the people around you". The individuals only concern is to preserve his/her life and his/her property. The state's role is to preserve both, in exchange for some of the individual's liberty. However in the US the right to bear arms is considered an individual's right, and not something the state can take away. It's not factored into the "price" of the social contract. Hence, your inclusion of the social contract doesn't make much sense.
[QUOTE]Controversially, I am going to abandon it because I can't sit here and try to chase after a dogpile of responses on my own, some of which make no actual response to what I said.[/QUOTE]
This can be easily interpreted as a refusal to defend an opinion in the face of convincing opposition.
[QUOTE]"your statement is incredibly stupid, i think i'll prove it by either restating my opinion or just bank on the fact that 5 other people will drown him in boxes and responses before he has the time"[/QUOTE]
This happens in a lot of debates, especially on controversial subjects, and especially on the internet. By posting your opinion you accept the fact that you could get dumbs and people are going to challenge you. Dumbs shouldn't stop you from posting, and if they do you should re-evaluate how much you value ratings.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39437050]It's honestly adorable how you think owning a scawy evil baby killing 12.7x99mm rifle makes you inherently crazy. Seriously, that silly ignorance is what writes assault weapons ban because you think that we're crazy for owning one, simply because you don't understand it. Grow up.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
I agree, I hope the gunshow loophole gets closed. But in the video they actively did their best to make it look as ~shady~ as possible, when most sales are nothing like that and they're between 2 responsible citizens.[/QUOTE]
Yep, they probably did. Wasn't arguing that.
Not as good as usual.
Guy seems a bit over opinionated, considering he tries to compare clay shooting with a shotgun to piloting a military drone
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;39438793]Not as good as usual.
Guy seems a bit over opinionated, considering he tries to compare clay shooting with a shotgun to piloting a military drone[/QUOTE]
I thought that part was funny too. "This kids pretty good at shooting clay pigeons with bird shot, I'd hate to see how accurate he is with an AR-15 or a predator drone!"
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39437050]It's honestly adorable how you think owning a scawy evil baby killing 12.7x99mm rifle makes you inherently crazy. Seriously, that silly ignorance is what writes assault weapons ban because you think that we're crazy for owning one, simply because you don't understand it. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
No I said I understand it, but roflmao aren't you quite the fucking gun-nut if you have a 50 caliber sniper rifle in your garage.
I don't give a fuck about people who have guns as their hobby, it's all fine by me. It's just that guns are quite destructive in nature, which is why it takes a certain level of crazy to like them as hobby, crazy-good or however you wanna view it.
And no you are not crazy [i]per se[/i] jesus why you have to be so defensive and take everything so literal. You are what makes the gun-people look bad in my eyes at least. Also pls shove that honest-adorable cutesy-ass bullshit of yours elsewhere, you don't talk to people like that.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39439200] but roflmao aren't you quite the fucking gun-nut if you have a 50 caliber sniper rifle in your garage.[/QUOTE]
How old are you, and is it hard for you to read?
Old enough, and no.
[editline]1st February 2013[/editline]
It's just that it's really not a wonder if people are skeptical or negative towards guns in today's society, as they were initially created for killing things. That's seemingly obvious.
But then there are the people who like to shoot guns for the hell of it, practice shooting or hunting game, which again is great, but that means there will be guns in your country, in a lot of people's hands, and sometimes bad things happens. Obviously banning guns is not an option, or banning certain types of guns which are not even found to be used in crimes really, but I'm just gonna leave this thread now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
