[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305872]have you noticed all the people arguing against me are exclusively american?
it's that deeply ingrained in you, so i'm sorry for that.[/QUOTE]
I know Englishmen, who were raised in England, who love guns and wish that the gun laws were a bit more lax there.
Does that make them weird for having a political opinion?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305872]have you noticed all the people arguing against me are exclusively american?
it's that deeply ingrained in you, so i'm sorry for that.[/QUOTE]
How is it that a moderator is shitposting
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49305846]how so? like, 5 different people respond to one post? who are you telling to calm down? we aren't sitting around collaborating thinking "yeeah lets all jump this guy!!". 5 individuals made 5 separate posts which happened to be in a short timespan because they happen to be watching the thread since they happen to be participating in it. I'd get "calm down" if it were one dude spamming but is it really inconceivable that maybe they (myself included) just thought that post was extra-responseworthy?[/QUOTE]
fair enough, i was more responding to spaceghost than anyone. the way i phrased what i was saying i can see his point though
but i still think it's just straight dumb to be so defensive about guns if you're only using them to pop off some rounds at the range
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305872]have you noticed all the people arguing against me are exclusively american?
it's that deeply ingrained in you, so i'm sorry for that.[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with anything.
Are you surprised that people from the country you're criticizing are arguing about you criticizing their country?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305872]have you noticed all the people arguing against me are exclusively american?
it's that deeply ingrained in you, so i'm sorry for that.[/QUOTE]
And I'm so sorry that it's been deeply ingrained in you to think that it's weird is a good argument.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49305885]I'm not even of the opinion that we should just hand out guns to every tom, dick, and nancy that asks for them. As much as I love guns, I definitely think better safety courses need to be mandated, along with strengthening background checks and the like - as well as tackling the root causes of a lot of the violence in this country, a lot of which is Poverty related. Work on taht, and make there be less stigma against mental health issues and getting help for them, as well as strengthening mental health care and I'd bet you'd see those suicides fall as well.
I'm actually curious as to what would drive suicides up like that.[/QUOTE]
i personally think having a licensing system similar to with cars would be great
[QUOTE=bdd458;49305798]Tho Suicides have gone up slightly[/QUOTE]
Most deaths resulting from legally owned guns are due to suicide or someone accidentally shooting themselves, not gun violence (i.e. people shooting other people). What this means is that some of the states with the lowest amount of gun crime actually have the highest amount of gun deaths. The states with the most gun deaths are generally the southern states, which have the most lax gun laws and probably some of the most depressed people.
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/[/url]
[QUOTE=bdd458;49305885]I'm not even of the opinion that we should just hand out guns to every tom, dick, and nancy that asks for them. As much as I love guns, I definitely think better safety courses need to be mandated, along with strengthening background checks and the like - as well as tackling the root causes of a lot of the violence in this country, a lot of which is Poverty related. Work on taht, and make there be less stigma against mental health issues and getting help for them, as well as strengthening mental health care and I'd bet you'd see those suicides fall as well.
I'm actually curious as to what would drive suicides up like that.[/QUOTE]
Poverty mostly imo, it sucks and makes people depressed. We have a massive poverty problem across America.
You could relate poverty to plenty of the homicide and suicide statistics, we really need to fix the actual problems at hand instead of finding a scapegoat.
and yeah I agree, we need more schooling related to guns, safety courses and a better background check would help out tremendously. Would stop idiots from shooting themselves and driving up gun-related injury statistics
Prohibition doesnt work anyway.
Im all for making it hard for people with criminal backgrounds and an unstable state of mental health from getting them, but outright banning firearms is downright fucking dumb.
People want what people want, and what people want, people get. Its as simple as supply and demand. Not even necessarily with a literal transaction, but more along the lines of a metaphor. Say theres a supply (people), and a demand (the urge in some people to kill, from anger or psychopathy, or any other reason), and theres multiple ways to ship the supply to meet the demand, guns are a faster overnight delivery, a knife would be an item being delivered in 2-3 days, other weapons would be the items in boxes at a store that you'd have to go obtain.
There are, surprise surprise, people out there who would do harm to or kill other people. While a gun certainly makes it easier, it doesnt stop them. Theres been a plethora of homicides in many other countries with harsher, stricter gun control laws, sometimes its with their hands, others with knives. Ive heard of a few mass stabbings from a few countries too.
Plus, im almost completely positive that a decent chunk, i'd ballpark 60(?)% of gun related deaths in the united states are suicides, if my memory serves right.
Mass shootings have an incredibly vague definition but i've heard it floats around 4 people. Ive also heard that a lot of them have to do with gang violence, which is another issue entirely that has to do with poverty and violent tendencies and whatnot.
Its not a simple solution. Going "well if you just take X away from Y, Z wont happen" doesnt make much sense if Z happens because of W, and not X.
the logistics of outright banning guns would be enough to scare any agency away from handling that, anyways.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49305948]the logistics of outright banning guns would be enough to scare any agency away from handling that, anyways.[/QUOTE]
this is primarily why it would never happen. good luck getting the army to take away weapons before over half of them desert
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49305948]the logistics of outright banning guns would be enough to scare any agency away from handling that, anyways.[/QUOTE]
It would also break the 2nd Amendment, the 4th, and possibly the 5th.
Outright banning guns would be a fucking nightmare.
The only way to do it that would be effective, and be permanent, would take decades (and boy do i mean fucking DECADES) of banning individual firearms at a time until the only ones that remain only barely resemble guns, work like shit, cant kill anyone, and only technically meet the requirements for the second amendment.
You would have to pretty much ban everything, one at a time, quietly, over the course of a century or so, until all you have is nerf guns with sharp darts to actually get rid of the weapons here, and even then, theres so many, you'd never get rid of [i]all[/i] of them.
[QUOTE=DuCT;49305968]It would also break the 2nd Amendment, the 4th, and possibly the 5th.[/QUOTE]
Oh man don't bring Amendments into this. People will try to say that, because it was written 300 years ago, it's basically not valid anymore. Whilst forgetting that we absolutely love the first Amendment :v:
Add onto that, that'd it'd be pointless in the long run anyway. There are around... What? 100 million guns? And 300 million people all in the country. On average something like 3 guns per 1 person in higher density populations. Its quite evident that the majority of people who own them dont seem to be murderous psychotic assholes. All you'd be doing is taking them away from law abiding people because of the minority of people who use them for stupid shit.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49305976]Outright banning guns would be a fucking nightmare.
The only way to do it that would be effective, and be permanent, would take decades (and boy do i mean fucking DECADES) of banning individual firearms at a time until the only ones that remain only barely resemble guns, work like shit, cant kill anyone, and only technically meet the requirements for the second amendment.
You would have to pretty much ban everything, one at a time, quietly, over the course of a century or so, until all you have is nerf guns with sharp darts to actually get rid of the weapons here, and even then, theres so many, you'd never get rid of [i]all[/i] of them.[/QUOTE]
Oh but boy will they try, as long as people are trying to appeal to emotion and tackle the wrong issues, I'm sure it'll eventually happen.
They would rather ban guns than fix the mental health institution and poverty issues in America
[QUOTE=DuCT;49305968]It would also break the 2nd Amendment, the 4th, and possibly the 5th.[/QUOTE]
which have already been broken and bent numerous times
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49305988]Oh man don't bring Amendments into this. People will try to say that, because it was written 300 years ago, it's basically not valid anymore. Whilst forgetting that we absolutely love the first Amendment[/QUOTE]
Well fuck them. They don't like it because it doesn't benefit them.
[sp]Plus, from what I've seen, they always tend to favor a "Big Brother" sort of government, or at least more government intervention or more of a nanny state.[/sp]
The solution to ending mass shootings isnt banning guns. Its fixing people.
[QUOTE=EvilMattress;49306010]Oh but boy will they try, as long as people are trying to appeal to emotion and tackle the wrong issues, I'm sure it'll eventually happen.
They would rather ban guns than fix the mental health institution and poverty issues in America[/QUOTE]
What he said.
hell even if guns weren't deadly weapons just getting them all would be the mother of all headaches. especially since there isn't a national registry, you'd have to run a buyback which some people would comply with but many would not. then you'd have to practically go door to door, which many wouldn't comply with. millions of search warrants would be required. then you'd have people pulling them out of grandma's garden bed for decades to come.
add in "some are willing and fully able to shoot at you" and you've got a logistical task so monumental that nothing in known history would compare, not even the holocaust
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49306032]hell even if guns weren't deadly weapons just getting them all would be the mother of all headaches. especially since there isn't a national registry, you'd have to run a buyback which some people would comply with but many would not. then you'd have to practically go door to door, which many wouldn't comply with. millions of search warrants would be required. then you'd have people pulling them out of grandma's garden bed for decades to come.
add in "some are willing and fully able to shoot at you" and you've got a logistical task so monumental that nothing in known history would compare, not even the holocaust[/QUOTE]
A massive buyback with amnesty and reward program along with mental health reform would certainly make a dent though. Add in Norway-esque hunting clubs for firearm ownership maybe.
[QUOTE=DuCT;49306014]Well fuck them. They don't like it because it doesn't benefit them.
[sp]Plus, from what I've seen, they always tend to favor a "Big Brother" sort of government, or at least more government intervention or more of a nanny state.[/sp][/QUOTE]
Everyone should read 1984, start to finish, and really ask themselves if they want a "big brother" style government.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49306032]hell even if guns weren't deadly weapons just getting them all would be the mother of all headaches. especially since there isn't a national registry, you'd have to run a buyback which some people would comply with but many would not. then you'd have to practically go door to door, which many wouldn't comply with. millions of search warrants would be required. then you'd have people pulling them out of grandma's garden bed for decades to come.
add in "some are willing and fully able to shoot at you" and you've got a logistical task so monumental that nothing in known history would compare, not even the holocaust[/QUOTE]
Dont forget that you'd also have to somehow find a way to repeal the second amendment.
Something that would, in all actuality, likely cause a second civil war.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305850] i mean, i'd also wager people don't need to hunt, either. we breed animals for food on farms, you don't need to go out and kill wild ones. that seems excessive to me. but whatever.[/QUOTE]
hunting is pretty important for conservation efforts actually. at least over here, the way hunting permits are issued is based around the level of overpopulation in a particular species. so like, if you have too many deer, they issue tons of deer permits, too many fowl, more bird permits, etc etc.
otherwise you'd probably need a pretty astronomical number of govt. employees culling animals all the time.
plus I dont think I've seen venison sold in stores so there isnt really any other way to get it than from a hunter lol
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49306004]Add onto that, that'd it'd be pointless in the long run anyway. There are around... What? 100 million guns? And 300 million people all in the country. On average something like 3 guns per 1 person in higher density populations. Its quite evident that the majority of people who own them dont seem to be murderous psychotic assholes. All you'd be doing is taking them away from law abiding people because of the minority of people who use them for stupid shit.[/QUOTE]
and the minority of people who will use them to shoot people will figure out ways to get them anyway, or find other methods (like building home made bombs).
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49306062]hunting is pretty important for conservation efforts actually. at least over here, the way hunting permits are issued is based around the level of overpopulation in a particular species. so like, if you have too many deer, they issue tons of deer permits, too many fowl, more bird permits, etc etc.
otherwise you'd probably need a pretty astronomical number of govt. employees culling animals all the time.
plus I dont think I've seen venison sold in stores so there isnt really any other way to get it than from a hunter lol[/QUOTE]
I live in Pennsylvania, and i can agree with this. Hunting has more purpose than just providing food, its also a way to keep the population of certain species in check so they dont fuck up the ecosystem.
Also, yeah, not really sure how you'd get the meat from an animal thats not grown on a farm if there were no hunters.
[editline]13th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Toro;49306069]and the minority of people who will use them to shoot people will figure out ways to get them anyway, or find other methods (like building home made bombs).[/QUOTE]
An example of this, though a little old, is the Columbine shooting, the guns were obtained illegally.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49306062]plus I dont think I've seen venison sold in stores so there isnt really any other way to get it than from a hunter lol[/QUOTE]
i've seen it sold in a privately owned butcher's shop but that was because people would sell their venison to them that they got from hunting so it doesn't change much there
Why is it whenever someone proposes that we should have laws to prevent and reduce gun massacres, people always go "Criminals will still kill people with guns"? "It's still going to happen" shouldn't be an excuse to not try and reduce gun massacres.
Imagine if that logic applied to anything else. "People will still accidentally fall off cell towers, so they shouldn't have harnesses to prevent that."
[QUOTE=megafat;49306153]Why is it whenever someone proposes that we should have laws to prevent and reduce gun massacres, people always go "Criminals will still kill people with guns"? "It's still going to happen" shouldn't be an excuse to not try and reduce gun massacres.
Imagine if that logic applied to anything else. "People will still accidentally fall off cell towers, so they shouldn't have harnesses to prevent that."[/QUOTE]
Not many people have actually been saying that. I'm for weapons training and better background checks/mental checks, but I'm against outright banning them. Which is what Rusty, who everyone was majorly arguing against, was for. Or rather, he thought it was "bizarre" that people owned weapons and that we shouldn't "need" them.
So there's that
I will go back in time and shoot the man who invented guns in order to prevent gun violence.
[QUOTE=megafat;49306153]Why is it whenever someone proposes that we should have laws to prevent and reduce gun massacres, people always go "Criminals will still kill people with guns"? "It's still going to happen" shouldn't be an excuse to not try and reduce gun massacres.
Imagine if that logic applied to anything else. "People will still accidentally fall off cell towers, so they shouldn't have harnesses to prevent that."[/QUOTE]
its more like "people are falling off cell towers so lets stop building cell towers" that people don't think is a good idea
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
