[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961567]
Correlation does not imply causation
Lets say it is. There are plenty of places with low crime with strict gun laws.[/QUOTE]
so what you're saying is that gun control is useless and they should be targeting social issues? who would have known
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38961608]so what you're saying is that gun control is useless and they should be targeting social issues? who would have known[/QUOTE]
No, I no where implied Gun control was useless. I do not understand how in gods name you picked that up.
[QUOTE=areolop;38961598][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA[/media]
Relevant?[/QUOTE]
Not really seeing as that's in a closed environment and did not involve any shots fired. It takes a fraction of a second to figure out your out of ammo, and then you start the reloading process.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;38960839]Make all guns bolt action[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle[/url]
it's a bolt action select-fire assault rifle
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961464]These things factor in. You know what else factors in? Accessibility to guns.
Why are you people CONSTANTLY harping on about other issues with the idea that guns aren't the issue. It CAN be and is both.[/QUOTE]
It's not possible to restrict a criminal's ability to get guns, at least in the US.
It's the same with drugs, and earlier examples like the prohibition.
[B]Those who want the guns to kill people WILL get them. [U]A normal person's willingness to get a gun is not proportional to those who want to mass murder.[/U][/B]
Yes, you may perform rigorous busts, and form government agencies like the DEA, but there will always be an outlet unknown to the authority where people are practically openly buying drugs and other stuff. The only reason the Black Market exists is BECAUSE we have restriction and regulation, the only difference between the black market and having the things be legal is that it's a bit shadier, and some guy in a suit is telling you not to use it to get what you want, despite it being illegal.
Teens drink alcohol at parties, and take drugs, and people mix up shit to knock people out and kidnap them, and people have marijuana dealers they regularly get their shit from.
It's just not possible to completely stop the circulation unless you convert to a totalitarian state, period.
Not even regarding the fact that, like citing that video, our rights really mean jackshit without an ability to make the government give us those rights, which is one of our rights too in the US!
If the government is allowed to completely hamper the ability use our guns right down to only the very basic right to just own that firearm, the owning of those guns is meaningless, and the people of the United States have pretty much deferred all power to the government, essentially giving up the right to HAVE a revolution should the government just decide that they're powerful enough to simply go about denying us the things written in the constitution.
These regulations are only good for one government and that government can and will eventually go bad, however if things are so regulated to stop incidents that could be easily averted otherwise, we won't have anything to secure our rights.
Peaceful protests are useless to a government that doesn't care, and unarmed revolts are fodder mass shootings, courtesy of such government.
Excuse my anarchy-tinted views. It is probably a lot of hypothetical bullshit but it's only hypothetical because it hasn't happened yet. Dismissing views based upon something that hasn't happened yet but is likely to happen eventually is simply repeating history, and setting us up for more tragedies that many people will look upon in the history books of the future as thing we could've prevented.
You have a good point though governor, and I really don't think people should have the US army's worth of weapons, hellfire drones and shit like that, but it's necessary at some point in time that the people are ready to fight for their freedoms and have a chance at succeeding in that fight.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961641]No, I no where implied Gun control was useless. I do not understand how in gods name you picked that up.[/QUOTE]
you said correlation doesn't imply causation, and then went to say that some places with low crime have high gun control
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38961676]you said correlation doesn't imply causation, and then went to say that some places with low crime have high gun control[/QUOTE]
To prove that it was a bogus argument.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;38961662]You have a good point though governor, and I really don't think people should have the US army's worth of weapons, hellfire drones and shit like that, but it's necessary at some point in time that the people are ready to fight for their freedoms and have a chance at succeeding in that fight.[/QUOTE]
There is no correlation between private firearm ownership and levels of democracy. Worldwide. At all.
Nor has there ever been a revolution won through civilian ownership.
Basically, it's a junk argument bordering of inane narcissism.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38961784]
There is no correlation between private firearm ownership and levels of democracy. Worldwide. At all.
Nor has there ever been a revolution won through civilian ownership.
Basically, it's a junk argument bordering of inane narcissism.[/QUOTE]
The revolutionary war had a couple battles won by militias using their own weapons.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38961784]
[B]There is no correlation between private firearm ownership and levels of democracy.[/B] Worldwide. At all.
Nor has there ever been a revolution won through civilian ownership.
Basically, it's a junk argument bordering of inane narcissism.[/QUOTE]
There is if a government running off unlimited power is determined to restrict that ownership.
A totalitarian state capable of making actions and decisions regardless of how moral they are is bound to be more successful in that endeavor related to a nation that is restricted in what actions and precautions they can take in order to achieve the same goal.
I was really making a very specific statement there.
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38961676]you said correlation doesn't imply causation, and then went to say that some places with low crime have high gun control[/QUOTE]
Yes, and I stated if we were going to use that argument. I was making two different refutations to a single point, what is so difficult to understand about this?
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38961942]The revolutionary war had a couple battles won by militias using their own weapons.[/QUOTE]
I know you like to compare things that happened hundreds of years ago today (ie political parties) but we've told you multiple times, that you really can't.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;38961972]There is if a government running off unlimited power is determined to restrict that ownership.
A totalitarian state capable of making actions and decisions regardless of how moral they are is bound to be more successful in that endeavor related to a nation that is restricted in what actions and precautions they can take in order to achieve the same goal.
I was really making a very specific statement there.[/QUOTE]
But it's still a false statement.
Civilian ownership does not do a lot to impede state power.
Totalitarian states run purely on popularism.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961989]
I know you like to compare things that happened hundreds of years ago today (ie political parties) but we've told you multiple times, that you really can't.[/QUOTE]
Okay, how about the revolution in Libya? Syria? Not every weapon in the hands of those rebels came from military defectors.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38961942]The revolutionary war had a couple battles won by militias using their own weapons.[/QUOTE]
Hardly a war winner.
And that was back then when the disproportion of power was so utterly cataclysmic as it is these days.
Unless you give civilians access to [B]real[/B] military equipment, such as machine guns, explosives, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks and so on, then I would be more inclined to believe that the right to bear arms is a more credible deterrent.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38962143]Okay, how about the revolution in Libya? Syria? Not every weapon in the hands of those rebels came from military defectors.[/QUOTE]
Military defections were critical in all of those. I was waiting to bring those revolutions up to prove my point. Syria has half the civilian ownership than the UK.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38961370]Honestly how difficult is it to cobble together hi-cap mags when you can make entire AKs out of shovels?[/QUOTE]
Those rifles were made using a shovel and a few AK parts, such as the barrel. It's not like you can just take a torch and hammer to a shovel and then HURR AM ASSAUTL RIFFLE.
Mags are a different beast though, you could slap one together with a few pieces of sheet metal purchasable in any hardware store.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;38961662]It's not possible to restrict a criminal's ability to get guns, at least in the US.
It's the same with drugs, and earlier examples like the prohibition.
[B]Those who want the guns to kill people WILL get them. [U]A normal person's willingness to get a gun is not proportional to those who want to mass murder.[/U][/B]
Yes, you may perform rigorous busts, and form government agencies like the DEA, but there will always be an outlet unknown to the authority where people are practically openly buying drugs and other stuff. The only reason the Black Market exists is BECAUSE we have restriction and regulation, the only difference between the black market and having the things be legal is that it's a bit shadier, and some guy in a suit is telling you not to use it to get what you want, despite it being illegal.
Teens drink alcohol at parties, and take drugs, and people mix up shit to knock people out and kidnap them, and people have marijuana dealers they regularly get their shit from.
It's just not possible to completely stop the circulation unless you convert to a totalitarian state, period.
Not even regarding the fact that, like citing that video, our rights really mean jackshit without an ability to make the government give us those rights, which is one of our rights too in the US!
If the government is allowed to completely hamper the ability use our guns right down to only the very basic right to just own that firearm, the owning of those guns is meaningless, and the people of the United States have pretty much deferred all power to the government, essentially giving up the right to HAVE a revolution should the government just decide that they're powerful enough to simply go about denying us the things written in the constitution.
These regulations are only good for one government and that government can and will eventually go bad, however if things are so regulated to stop incidents that could be easily averted otherwise, we won't have anything to secure our rights.
Peaceful protests are useless to a government that doesn't care, and unarmed revolts are fodder mass shootings, courtesy of such government.
Excuse my anarchy-tinted views. It is probably a lot of hypothetical bullshit but it's only hypothetical because it hasn't happened yet. Dismissing views based upon something that hasn't happened yet but is likely to happen eventually is simply repeating history, and setting us up for more tragedies that many people will look upon in the history books of the future as thing we could've prevented.
You have a good point though governor, and I really don't think people should have the US army's worth of weapons, hellfire drones and shit like that, but it's necessary at some point in time that the people are ready to fight for their freedoms and have a chance at succeeding in that fight.[/QUOTE]
Even if they couldn't get guns, they'd have plenty of access to plenty of other dangerous tools. Gasoline, hammers, axes, knives, explosives, vehicles, all fairly readily accessible in our nation,and very dangerous in the wrong hands.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38962172]Military defections were critical in all of those. I was waiting to bring those revolutions up to prove my point. Syria has half the civilian ownership than the UK.[/QUOTE]
Military defection was critical, but would the civilians even have been willing to risk it if they were unarmed themselves to start? If they tried anyway, would they have still succeeded if they were completely unarmed prior to the defections?
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;38962325]Military defection was critical, but would the civilians even have been willing to risk it if they were unarmed themselves to start? If they tried anyway, would they have still succeeded if they were completely unarmed prior to the defections?[/QUOTE]
They were unarmed.
What did you think caused the split in Assad's military?
Because they rolled tanks and planes against protesters.
[editline]25th December 2012[/editline]
For reference, Syria had 3.9 guns per 100 people making it 112th in the world ranking. Compared to England at 8.8 per 100.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961530]Jared Loughner also managed to kill so many because of his extended magazine.[/QUOTE]
uh except worse massacres have been committed with magazines that hold less than 33 cartridges?
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38961308]The higher the mag cap is, the more likely your gun is to jam. It takes a lot longer to unjam a rifle than it does to reload.[/QUOTE]
Usually the jams caused by magazines are very easy to fix, just cycle the bolt once.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38961514]The entire reason that Jared Loughner wasn't able to kill more people than he did is because when he was attempting to reload, a woman came up behind him and knocked the reload out of his hands, and she said "it was the only chance I had to prevent him from killing more people".
So yes, it does give people the chance to react. Same thing happened with the guy with the AK outside of the White House. He was reloading and got tackled.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, but I don't think it makes enough of a difference. Nobody stopped the Virginia Tech or Columbine shooters, and they were restricted to 10-round magazines.
[QUOTE]
"The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on "Meet the Press." MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Customer Service - Metropolitan Police Department"
[/QUOTE]
Looks like someone is about to get raped legally.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38962172]Hardly a war winner.
And that was back then when the disproportion of power was so utterly cataclysmic as it is these days.
Unless you give civilians access to [B]real[/B] military equipment, such as machine guns, explosives, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks and so on, then I would be more inclined to believe that the right to bear arms is a more credible deterrent.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
Military defections were critical in all of those. I was waiting to bring those revolutions up to prove my point. Syria has half the civilian ownership than the UK.[/QUOTE]
Actually in Misrata and the Awazad mountains south of Tripoli which were the ones who took Tripoli they were using old ass Cacanos and double barreled shotguns up for the first couple of months, it was the people in Benghazi that had the Military Defections, and they immediately had T-72s and Mig-23s at their disposal within days of the revolution starting, and they never even reached Sirte.
If I was the guys lawyer, I would try to come up with some sort of 'press immunity.'
[QUOTE]Gregory said, “you’re telling me that it’s not a matter of common sense that if you don’t have an ability to shoot off 30 rounds without reloading, that, just possibly, you could reduce the loss of life?”[/QUOTE]
It takes like two or three seconds to change a mag and it seems to me that most mass murderers go unopposed anyways, until the police show up.
By the way 30 round mags aren't high capacity. I'm pretty sure that it's been an industry standard to have semi-autos shipped with a 30 round mag. [I]Unless you're cheap like Colt; you get a dinky 20 round USGI mag[/I]. As far back as World War II, semi auto and full auto rifles have been equipped with 30 round mags.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;38962226]Those rifles were made using a shovel and a few AK parts, such as the barrel. It's not like you can just take a torch and hammer to a shovel and then HURR AM ASSAUTL RIFFLE.
Mags are a different beast though, you could slap one together with a few pieces of sheet metal purchasable in any hardware store.
[/QUOTE]
The one I found shows him making the entire receiver and rifling his own blank, and if you've got that then what else do you need?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38960608]The problem here people need to realise that just because you can think of ins and outs, doesn't mean legislation can just be implemented.[/QUOTE]
Like tax loopholes?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38961232]Hupp based her entire radical pro-gun platform on her experiences with very very strong "what ifs". Tragic as her story is, it's not in any way good evidence against gun control.
[/QUOTE]
And the Brady Campaign/Sarah Brady didn't? The catchphrase of the anti-gun lobby is "If it saves one life, it's worth it." Their entire argument is based on what-ifs, such as what if he didn't have access to a gun, what if he didn't have "hi-cap" mags. What-ifs and fabrications are the core of anti-gun emotional response to these kinds of shootings.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;38961386]Despite our nerd argument I'd just like to wish everyone a merry christmas and despite our difference i bet 90% of you are cool dudes, im drunk[/QUOTE]
I was drunk yesterday and debating this stuff too.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38963529]The one I found shows him making the entire receiver and rifling his own blank, and if you've got that then what else do you need?[/QUOTE]
You need some fancy tools for that though, right?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;38964439]You need some fancy tools for that though, right?[/QUOTE]
I could easily build a fully automatic gun with nothing but some pipe, a bit of steel, and a dremel
[editline]25th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;38964439]You need some fancy tools for that though, right?[/QUOTE]
he used a hammer, a jig, some fire, and a cutting tool of some sort. nothing really fancy
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38964851]I could easily build a fully automatic gun with nothing but some pipe, a bit of steel, and a dremel[/QUOTE]
Uh, not really. The PPSh and Sten are two of the simplest automatic firearms ever built, and they're a little more complicated than pipe and a bit of steel. Also not really easy to build, just easy by gun standards.
Zip guns have been around for ages but they can't compare with engineered firearms.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;38960894]This is only going to help in the super rare chance that we get a heroic person at the scene AND near the shooter who also NOTICES he's reloading (while hiding for his own life, unless he doesn't give a shit and is practically observing the guy) and is close enough to run and tackle him and is also able to overpower him.[/QUOTE]
If everyone carried guns, this wouldn't be a problem. It doesn't take a hero to know that to live, he has to kill another person that's trying to kill him. The choice is easy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.