[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560389]An immediate ban on all guns as called for by many kneejerkers who don't think things through renders gun owners criminals.[/QUOTE]
I haven't claimed for an immediate ban on all guns, I haven't seen anyone else in this thread claim the same, I don't even understand where you are coming from, increased regulation isn't an immediate ban on all, "insert derogatory stupidity term here". The only knee jerk reactions I've seen so far have been coming specifically from you and agent so far. If you want to ignore the truth don't complain when you aren't taken seriously.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560389]An immediate ban on all guns as called for by many kneejerkers who don't think things through renders gun owners criminals.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't; it would render gun owners who refuse to give them up as criminals. However, you think the intention would be to criminalize innocent people. No: the intention is to save lives.
Let's put aside whether or not that would work. Let's just look at the ethics. Do you think that saving lives is more, or less important than someone's right to own a gun? Would you let several thousand people die every year from gun-related homicide because you believe it is a natural right to own a weapon?
[QUOTE=KlaseR;48560377]Gun murders are out of proportion in the us compared to any other civilized country, and somehow this has nothing to do with them being legal? Please.
Everywhere else its damn hard to put your hands on a firearm, unless you have contacts, but the average mentally deficient person would have a terribly hard job to get hold of one. And no, stabbing or using other weapons isn't at all as easy so the "he would have done it anyway" argument doesn't stand. If you think aiming and pushing a trigger is as easy and running up to someone and attempting to split them apart with a knife is equally as easy to pull off (mentally and physically) you should think about it a bit longer.[/QUOTE]
The majority of firearm murders are committed by people in poverty who cannot get out of it either due to systemic racism or subscription to a culture that glorifies being a "thug". It seems to me like the problem isn't that guns are available to these people, it's that these people are in a situation where they feel like they need to use them to claw their way out.
It's a multifaceted issue which is difficult to see from the outside when all your media shows you is "american man kills american man with american gun".
In this case a group of rabid NRA card carrying conservatives intentionally broke a system designed to catch people with obvious mental illnesses, which allowed this guy to slip through and commit a crime motivated not by his ownership of a firearm but by his schizoid belief that everyone around him was a racist out to get him.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48560234]I have a question for the gun guys:
Would you introduce legislation to unrestrict the purchase and sale of guns to countries that already have very low gun crime rates like Japan or France, and have heavily restricted guns?[/QUOTE]
This would be my take on it;
I would only introduce legislation if the people needed to defend themselves (such as in high-crime areas), and a buyer would only be able to purchase a gun if all of these requirements are met
- The buyer is mentally healthy
- The buyer has no criminal record heavier than an infraction
- The buyer is over 21
- The buyer does not intend to use it for nefarious purposes (this would be hard to identify, though it would probably be predictable with certain information)
I could probably think of a few more requirements if you gave me time, anyway, Buyers would only be able to own a limited amount of ammunition for their gun, and a limited number of weapons, and will only be able to resell them legally to trusted companies to restrict unregistered guns as much as possible.
[QUOTE=Toro;48560427]This would be my take on it;
I would only introduce legislation if the people needed to defend themselves (such as in high-crime areas), and a buyer would only be able to purchase a gun if all of these requirements are met
- The buyer is mentally healthy
- The buyer has no criminal record heavier than an infraction
- The buyer is over 21
- The buyer does not intend to use it for nefarious purposes (this would be hard to identify, though it would probably be predictable with certain information)
I could probably think of a few more requirements if you gave me time, anyway, Buyers would only be able to own a limited amount of ammunition for their gun, and a limited number of weapons, and will only be able to resell them legally to trusted companies to restrict unregistered guns as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
Your bullet points are already requirements. The first one doesn't have to be disclosed, though.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48560414]No it doesn't; it would render gun owners who refuse to give them up as criminals. However, you think the intention would be to criminalize innocent people. No: the intention is to save lives.
Let's put aside whether or not that would work. Let's just look at the ethics. Do you think that saving lives is more, or less important than someone's right to own a gun? Would you let several thousand people die every year from gun-related homicide because you believe it is a natural right to own a weapon?[/QUOTE]
If you put forth a sliver of effort to read my posts you'd see I'm pushing for and suggesting a solution that makes it harder for crazies to get guns and doesn't demonize gun owners. You are arguing with the wrong person and attempting to twist your perception of me into some manic gunslinger. I collect antique guns and I don't want a collection dating as far back as the 1700s to get melted down because someone had an irrational fear reaction when they saw a Glock on TV.
You and WarriorWounds are trying very hard to cast me as a crazy redneck with a death fetish but it's not working.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48560201]What is it with the pro-gun people on facepunch who can't discuss something without insulting pro gun control people?[/QUOTE]
Pot. Kettle.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560452]If you put forth a sliver of effort to read my posts you'd see I'm pushing for and suggesting a solution that makes it harder for crazies to get guns and doesn't demonize gun owners. You are arguing with the wrong person and attempting to twist your perception of me into some manic gunslinger. I collect antique guns and I don't want a collection dating as far back as the 1700s to get melted down because someone had an irrational fear reaction when they saw a Glock on TV.
You and WarriorWounds are trying very hard to cast me as a crazy redneck with a death fetish but it's not working.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you are a crazy redneck with a death fetish, I don't know where you got that impression. I just think you are uninformed about the subject or potentially just don't care as it relates to potential gun victims and our mentally ill. You don't understand the implications of your blind defense of guns, and never supporting legislation or funding to help the poor and mentally ill in our country.
Edit:
It's all talk when the tragedies happen to console away the rightful disgust of our citizens, but when it comes time to walk the walk and actually support the laws that will help solve this problem your party always stands in the way, every single time.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48560558]I don't think you are a crazy redneck with a death fetish, I don't know where you got that impression. I just think you are uninformed about the subject or potentially just don't care as it relates to potential gun victims and our mentally ill. You don't understand the implications of your blind defense of gun laws, and never supporting legislation or funding to help the poor and mentally ill in our country.[/QUOTE]
Continually denying the fact that I am well aware of the situation and in support of finding a solution - just one that works for a majority - won't make you right. You are going out of your way to selectively read and respond to parts of my posts while ignoring the rest and I don't think anyone but you and proboards is fooled by it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560572]Continually denying the fact that I am well aware of the situation and in support of finding a solution - just one that works for a majority - won't make you right.[/QUOTE]
Hey man, likewise to yourself. Get some perspective on what you've been typing for the past two pages.
Edit:
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560572]You are going out of your way to selectively read and respond to parts of my posts while ignoring the rest and I don't think anyone but you and proboards is fooled by it.[/QUOTE]
I've stuck to responding to and picking apart methodically every little thing you've put forth, you are just outright dishonest at this point. You completely dismissed my last set of points as well.
[QUOTE=Fort83;48560588]You didn't actually answer his question though.[/QUOTE]
I've answered the real question multiple times. He's creating a hypothetical with a black or white solution (everyone has lots of guns OR everyone is alive and happy) in what he perceives is a way to weaken my position. That doesn't reflect reality and I'm not going to humor it by playing along.
[editline]28th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48560558]Edit:
It's all talk when the tragedies happen to console away the rightful disgust of our citizens, but when it comes time to walk the walk and actually support the laws that will help solve this problem your party always stands in the way, every single time.[/QUOTE]
Exactly which party do you think this is? Because I'm voting for Bernie Sanders and the NRA can go to hell.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560593]
Exactly which party do you think this is? Because I'm voting for Bernie Sanders and the NRA can go to hell.[/QUOTE]
That's really surprising to me after your repeated posts of hating liberals over and over, that's like a serious disconnect in your logical reasoning. The NRA shares all the same positions you do, so I don't know why you are telling them to go to hell either.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48560658]That's really surprising to me after your repeated posts of hating liberals over and over, that's like a serious disconnect in your logical reasoning. The NRA shares all the same positions you do, so I don't know why you are telling them to go to hell either.[/QUOTE]
I [I]am[/I] a liberal. I hate people who call themselves liberals while calling to ban everything they don't like, from guns to rebel flags to "hate speech". The NRA is a for-profit organization that makes money off of stringing out the problem and making it last as long as possible. [I]They are the reason this man was able to buy the Glock he used to commit the murder.[/I] If they gave a shit they'd be trying to repeal NFA and work with the ATF on a better solution. But the NFA is good for them because it gives the people they exploit something to moan about, meaning they can keep pulling in donations. They can go to hell.
You have yet to realize this but not everything is black and white and not everyone conforms to the stereotypes you design.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48560666]
You have yet to realize this but not everything is black and white and not everyone conforms to the stereotypes you design.[/QUOTE]
So now were starting up the straw man and ad hom again, alright man, have fun. I've already said my bit, this discussion has turned into a repeating joke at this point. I was happy and really enjoyed our logical discussion yesterday, I think I've lost some respect for you from these last couple of pages however.
Citing names of fallacies you heard does not make you right, does not make me wrong, and even if a fallacy had occurred they do not even invalidate the point of the argument. Calling out fallacies, especially when you're wrong, isn't an instant win button.
You go ahead and lose your respect for me. Maybe I'll earn some back when you find out you can actually read more than 25% of the words in any given post if you just try.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48560414]No it doesn't; it would render gun owners who refuse to give them up as criminals. However, you think the intention would be to criminalize innocent people. No: the intention is to save lives.[/QUOTE]
You could defend the most extreme of civil liberties infringements with the same language. 'We're not criminalizing free speech, we're criminalizing refusal to obey our free speech restrictions. And our intention is not to criminalize innocent people, our intention is to save lives.' Sounds like weasel-word politician speech to me.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48560739]So now were starting up the straw man, alright man, have fun. I've already said my bit, this discussion has turned into a repeating joke at this point. I was happy and really enjoyed our logical discussion yesterday, I think I've lost some respect for you from these last couple of pages however.[/QUOTE]
I have yet to see you make a single rational argument, just strawmans. Not all gun owners support the NRA, and the NRA themselves has supported gun control in the past. Fun fact, no gun control law would have stopped this, but every time something bad happens, the FP gun control crowd collectively circle jerks over it. Also, not every gun owner in a Republican, lot of Liberals are, Libertarians like me are, Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, etc.
Remember kids, when you shoot someone in real life, you shoot at least a thousand people on the internet's free time and and illusion of intelligence, too.
The local news here did a report. They said they were going to focus on the victims and not the shooter.
They talked for about 5 minutes about the victims and then went on and talked for like 15 minutes about the shooter. Showed all kinds of photos, showed his house and interviewed his neighbors.
It was very confusing.
[url]http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colorado-death-penalty-debated-as-2-mass-killers-6471700.php[/url]
Proof you don't need a gun to kill people. Dude in this article stabbed five people to death in a bar fight.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48562596][url]http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colorado-death-penalty-debated-as-2-mass-killers-6471700.php[/url]
Proof you don't need a gun to kill people. Dude in this article stabbed five people to death in a bar fight.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed, similarly I could probably punch a few people to death as well. But it takes a lot longer and requires a lot more effort than simply pulling a trigger five times.
This has been repeatedly emphasised in this thread and if you keep harping on this line of reasoning then you are really bad at arguing.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48562596][url]http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colorado-death-penalty-debated-as-2-mass-killers-6471700.php[/url]
Proof you don't need a gun to kill people. Dude in this article stabbed five people to death in a bar fight.[/QUOTE]
This is the biggest non-argument in the thread, why do you keep bringing it up?
It's a lot harder to stab people to death than to shoot them. You can kill people in a lot of different ways, it doesn't make guns less dangerous.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48562596][url]http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colorado-death-penalty-debated-as-2-mass-killers-6471700.php[/url]
Proof you don't need a gun to kill people. Dude in this article stabbed five people to death in a bar fight.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit will you stop fixating on "hurr hurr don't need guns to kill". Nobody has ever claimed [B]anything[/B] to the contrary of that and we are all more than aware that you can kill someone with damn near anything given the time and effort required to do fatal damage.
The point has been, and always will be that guns make the process infinitely easier. There is little to no physical exertion needed to kill someone with a gun. Range is not a limiting factor for most scenarios. Training (or lack thereof) doesn't matter as long as you know how to point and shoot you still have a good chance of killing somebody. It's a much more detached and effortless method of killing things, and [B]that[/B] is why spree stabbings or spree beatings are nowhere near as common as shooting, they take effort to perform. And require know how to actually do real damage to maximise fatalities.
Just curious, is the US government able to sue gun shops who sell guns to people who then use them to commit awful acts like this? Are the guns even traceable back to the retailer? Like I just thought that if the US government were able to charge the gun shop a significant fine if they sell a gun which if used the next day to murder someone, that this might encourage gun shops to self-regulate, to perform background checks on every new customer and to use discretion to refuse to serve customers all in an effort to manage risk. A 'market-based solution'.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48564383]Just curious, is the US government able to sue gun shops who sell guns to people who then use them to commit awful acts like this? Are the guns even traceable back to the retailer? Like I just thought that if the US government were able to charge the gun shop a significant fine if they sell a gun which if used the next day to murder someone, that this might encourage gun shops to self-regulate, to perform background checks on every new customer and to use discretion to refuse to serve customers all in an effort to manage risk. A 'market-based solution'.[/QUOTE]
No, how the hell is the gun store at fault? They are following the FFL process, which is a federal requirement to sell firearms. They are at no way at fault, unless they don't follow the process. (i.e. sell guns with no background check or waiting period, etc)
Since Grenadiac shares my love for Bernie Sanders I figure I'd post his opinions on the issue in this thread, help provide some perspective.
[video=youtube;sq86YXlQ4d0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq86YXlQ4d0[/video]
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48564393]Since Grenadiac shares my love for Bernie Sanders I figure I'd post his opinions on the issue in this thread, help provide some perspective.
[video=youtube;sq86YXlQ4d0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq86YXlQ4d0[/video][/QUOTE]
Banning "assault weapons" (which are technically defined as anything select-fire, not the big black "scary" semi auto long guns) won't solve violent crime.
Next.
And he just lost my vote.
Whether or not firearms can make mass-murders easier isn't as important of an issue to me as the fact that these people are willing to kill living people in the first place. People can be crazy, sure, but think about how many violent attacks like this happen in the United States. How many attempted mass stabbings occur in the United Kingdom? I'm not talking about scale here, just think about the frequency of attacks in itself. It feels like the US has had a disproportionate amount of violent attacks within the past few years compared to other developed countries. What is making people so violent? Could our culture contribute to the violence in some way? What about medications like anti-depressants that pharmacies hand out like candy? Many of those drugs are untested, pharmaceuticals is a real business over here and they really don't care what their drugs do to people. Violence could be caused by a number of reasons, but I know we can fix it. I never hear about shit like this happening in places like Spain of Finland.
[QUOTE=Renegade Master;48564476]Whether or not firearms can make mass-murders easier isn't as important of an issue to me as the fact that these people are willing to kill living people in the first place. People can be crazy, sure, but think about how many violent attacks like this happen in the United States. How many attempted mass stabbings occur in the United Kingdom? I'm not talking about scale here, just think about the frequency of attacks in itself. What is making people so violent? Could our culture contribute to the violence in some way? What about medications like anti-depressants that pharmacies hand out like candy? Many of those drugs are untested, pharmaceuticals is a real business over here and they really don't care what their drugs do to people. Violence could be caused by a number of reasons, but I know we can fix it. I never hear about shit like this happening in places like Spain of Finland.[/QUOTE]
Sadly, people have been killing people for thousands of years.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48564401]Banning "assault weapons" (which are technically defined as anything select-fire, not the big black "scary" semi auto long guns) won't solve violent crime.
Next.
And he just lost my vote.[/QUOTE]
His positions on firearms are better than any other democratic candidate tbh and he doesn't want to outright ban any guns that currently exist in the US, just doesn't want to add more "assault weapons" - which I disagree with but it's something I can live with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.