Im a strong be leaver of guns for hunting,and self protection. People that are ageanst that make my blood boil.
YES! You don't even want to get me started on this!
I LOVE GUNS! <3<3<3<3
I own over ten myself, I hunt as often as I can with them, I do competitions with my 12 gauge for track shooting, and I just love them all around!
LIBERALS WHO ARE FOR GUN CONTROL MAKE ME SO ANGRY!!!!!! I mean, just look at al the times when mass shooting were stopped by responsible concealed carry owners! They think that if you take away the guns then there will be no more shootings! BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN CHICAGO WHEN THEY BANNED GUNS??
I'll stop now before I offend anyone.
Here Gat, I think you will like these:
Please don't look at this if you are Pro Gun control
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b3/8a/b6/b38ab6acc971f21e5cbd1f14899b39f0.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e1/30/bb/e130bbf7f009a2b296a185c2c4f0a554.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/09/77/1d/09771dd6ff85d6ec7ed7d76d3da32f3c.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/3c/3f/15/3c3f156d83281e10d55b23d51e77ce3b.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/17/15/e0/1715e041a7afad8db6fe80608a237f8a.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/53/24/ca/5324ca484aefdc1d868fc1ba47d28e82.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/81/ec/e7/81ece7c30a682b1e50828997f7f8131a.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/fa/59/3a/fa593a6d48c68d3c6a9a708ceab7dc45.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ea/11/59/ea1159ab26c2cc101427295efa48890c.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ed/ab/e0/edabe0ad69aef17b1334c61df2013c07.jpg)
Quote from: Tam and Martin on March 09, 2016, 06:06:41 PM
YES! You don't even want to get me started on this!
I LOVE GUNS! <3<3<3<3
I own over ten myself, I hunt as often as I can with them, I do competitions with my 12 gauge for track shooting, and I just love them all around!
LIBERALS WHO ARE FOR GUN CONTROL MAKE ME SO ANGRY!!!!!! I mean, just look at al the times when mass shooting were stopped by responsible concealed carry owners! They think that if you take away the guns then there will be no more shootings! BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN CHICAGO WHEN THEY BANNED GUNS??
I'll stop now before I offend anyone.
Here Gat, I think you will like these:
Please don't look at this if you are Pro Gun control
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b3/8a/b6/b38ab6acc971f21e5cbd1f14899b39f0.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e1/30/bb/e130bbf7f009a2b296a185c2c4f0a554.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/09/77/1d/09771dd6ff85d6ec7ed7d76d3da32f3c.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/3c/3f/15/3c3f156d83281e10d55b23d51e77ce3b.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/17/15/e0/1715e041a7afad8db6fe80608a237f8a.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/53/24/ca/5324ca484aefdc1d868fc1ba47d28e82.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/81/ec/e7/81ece7c30a682b1e50828997f7f8131a.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/fa/59/3a/fa593a6d48c68d3c6a9a708ceab7dc45.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ea/11/59/ea1159ab26c2cc101427295efa48890c.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/ed/ab/e0/edabe0ad69aef17b1334c61df2013c07.jpg)
I own a few guns and have two AR15s and i always carry a gun with me.
Not memes. These are journalist pictures of the United States Naval Reserve Station in Chattanooga, TN after it was attacked by a jihadist and 5 US servicemen were killed. Deadly, sorrowful irony.
(http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chattanooga-marines1.jpg)
(http://gatesofvienna.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chattanooga-marines2.jpg)
Hey, sorry for the backseat moderating, but can we not erupt into arguments?
You realise that the new gun control laws just require a background check before you sell someone a gun? If you're afraid your freedom to own a gun is compromised, then it's because you have something to hide.
Also consider the fact that only America has shootings of this size and scale so frequently.
And also consider that the most well-trained police forces on Earth rarely use guns.
And consider that the American police do not consider their guns to be a last resort. Consider that they always shoot people to kill, and never to injure or disable. Shooting someone that you think might be armed? I consider that murder. Shooting someone who has a knife from a distance? Also murder. Of course there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps a knifeman tried to attack a civilian or was holding a hostage. In these circumstances then it would be acceptable. I've seen a video in which American senior cops watch videos of British police taking down armed assailants without the need to fire a gun. And when the person pulled out the knife they said "In America, there's no way he's getting out of that alive. He'd be shot."
Quote from: Sagetip on March 09, 2016, 07:59:51 PM
Hey, sorry for the backseat moderating, but can we not erupt into arguments?
i'm not looking to which is why . . .
Quote from: Jet the binturong on March 09, 2016, 08:01:35 PM
You realise that the new gun control laws just require a background check before you sell someone a gun? If you're afraid your freedom to own a gun is compromised, then it's because you have something to hide.
Also consider the fact that only America has shootings of this size and scale so frequently.
And also consider that the most well-trained police forces on Earth rarely use guns.
And consider that the American police do not consider their guns to be a last resort. Consider that they always shoot people to kill, and never to injure or disable. Shooting someone that you think might be armed? I consider that murder. Shooting someone who has a knife from a distance? Also murder. Of course there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps a knifeman tried to attack a civilian or was holding a hostage. In these circumstances then it would be acceptable. I've seen a video in which American senior cops watch videos of British police taking down armed assailants without the need to fire a gun. And when the person pulled out the knife they said "In America, there's no way he's getting out of that alive. He'd be shot."
I am not going to answer this. I respect my opinion and i hope you do mine.
I respect your opinion, but all opinions must be challenged.
Those guys in the recruitment office are almost totally defenseless and they are prime targets for attacks. However there is little that can be done about their lack of self defense. And really even if they were armed the result may very well have been the same as surprise attacks, and drive by shootings kinda negate how effective bringing weapons into play will be.
That said they still ought to have something, even a armed police officer at the door would deter most attackers from ever even attempting something.
Anyways.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on March 09, 2016, 08:01:35 PM
And consider that the American police do not consider their guns to be a last resort. Consider that they always shoot people to kill, and never to injure or disable. Shooting someone that you think might be armed? I consider that murder. Shooting someone who has a knife from a distance? Also murder. Of course there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps a knifeman tried to attack a civilian or was holding a hostage. In these circumstances then it would be acceptable. I've seen a video in which American senior cops watch videos of British police taking down armed assailants without the need to fire a gun. And when the person pulled out the knife they said "In America, there's no way he's getting out of that alive. He'd be shot."
This is sadly the truth. But saying that they always shoot to kill, never to injure or disable is a bit far fetched. Shooting someone in the leg, while less likely to kill them, isn't practical. Not only is it a harder target but it still leaves the assailant free too retaliate.
Also saying that Cops in America are don't use their guns as a last resort is a huge blanket statement. And its also 90% of the time false. While they are more likely to shoot an armed suspect 'If they are afraid for their life' they won't just gun down everyone who pulls a weapon.
The rule is if that Cop feels his life is endangered he has the right to shoot. Lots of people would rather have a bad guy full of bullet holes then a man doing his job with a deadly knife wound.
Also America isn't the only place to be affected by shootings. Some eighty people got shot in one sitting in France not to long ago, and gun violence attacks happen even more commonly in the Middle East. Even the U.K. has frequent gun violence.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on March 09, 2016, 08:21:13 PM
Even the U.K. has frequent gun violence.
I have found no evidence to corroborate that statement.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3492710/thumbs/o-GUN-DEATHS-570.jpg?7)
Of course, these statistics only go up to 2011. I'll try and find something else.
That statistic chart counts only homicides, where people were murdered. It ignores basic gun crime.
Try this link to a CNN article.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528)
Edit:
The U.K is another matter though. Its the United States which is fighting against its own liberties now. And what worries me the most is that so many people would willingly give up liberties for supposed safety. Its like FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Quote from: Jet the binturong on March 09, 2016, 08:19:44 PM
I respect your opinion, but all opinions must be challenged.
I agree, i just don't think it should be here.
Quote from: Tam and Martin on March 09, 2016, 08:44:02 PM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on March 09, 2016, 08:19:44 PM
I respect your opinion, but all opinions must be challenged.
I agree, i just don't think it should be here.
That doesn't make much sense.
Those were pretty funny pictures, Tam.
Thank you! ;)
In my personal opinion, if guns laws are introduced, they restrict buying guns for people who:
A, have a violent criminal record (history of assaults, thievery, etc).
or...
B, have medically-diagnosed anger problems that cause them to snap violently (in other words, if they had a gun and snapped...they might use it.)
In other words, most of the population would still get to keep their constitutional right, but only those who the info suggests would use them for violent purposes would be restricted.
I agree there should be gun laws, but there should not be a gun ban by NO MEANS.
Quote from: Groddil on March 10, 2016, 03:27:22 AM
In my personal opinion, if guns laws are introduced, they restrict buying guns for people who:
A, have a violent criminal record (history of assaults, thievery, etc).
or...
B, have medically-diagnosed anger problems that cause them to snap violently (in other words, if they had a gun and snapped...they might use it.)
In other words, most of the population would still get to keep their constitutional right, but only those who the info suggests would use them for violent purposes would be restricted.
Groddil stated my opinion 100%. Gun laws are one issue where I lean to the right. These restrictions are sensible and responsible. I have a British friend who asked me my opinion on gun laws, knowing that I lean to the left on nearly every social issue, but he was surprised by my defense of my right to bear arms, and Groddil's suggestion is nearly exactly what I told him my beliefs are.
Yeah... Guns in the hands of people who know how to use them and can be trusted to do so responsibly = good (or at least neutral) thing. Guns in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing or can't be trusted with them = very bad. Banning guns altogether seems unnecessary, but there's simple and non-invasive steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence.
Unless I'm very much incorrect, I believe that there is already an instituted background check for the above mentioned items. I'm not sure about its rigor or spread, but I do know background checks are already a Federal mandate.
Personally, I'm more in favor of state regulations than federal ones; I do feel that this should be a matter of state sovereignty.
Yes, there are. The system for the back round checks though aren't very good for telling if that person should be allowed to have a gun. If I am not mistaken, the San Bernandino shooters went through the back round checks and passed. I don't know exactly what we need to improve in them because I haven't looked into it much, but they really should be better.
@Groddil: A I agree with, B I do not because of a brother-in-law. I am not, however, going to spread his problems across the Internet. I'm not going to state any further on this subject either because you all are a very strange bunch of teens who like to debate and argue over political views.
Well, in that case neither had a criminal record or mental illnesses, nor did anyone know that they would be jihadists. It is a little bit hard to deny someone a gun for a crime they haven't committed yet.
@Corn: Who doesn't like a bit of debate? It may sometimes get a bit contentious, but it's all in good fun. More importantly, debate helps us become more educated on both our views and the views of others. While debate won't likely cause anyone to change their position, it will make them think harder about it.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on March 10, 2016, 03:53:16 PM
Well, in that case neither had a criminal record or mental illnesses, nor did anyone know that they would be jihadists. It is a little bit hard to deny someone a gun for a crime they haven't committed yet.
Exactly. As I said, it needs to be improved, but how is a different story.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on March 10, 2016, 03:49:03 PM
Personally, I'm more in favor of state regulations than federal ones; I do feel that this should be a matter of state sovereignty.
Why's this? Varying state regulations always bugged me a little, consistency is a virtue in my eyes.
In states like Montana or Alaska where it is sometimes necessary to have a firearm for protection against wild animals, whereas a lot of the eastern states are not in such a situation. If federal regulations could not allow some people in the states that need firearms to get or use them, it would not be practical for state-to-state regulations to be done away with.
Consistency may be good throughout an entire state, but with a country as large as the US, there is a reason each state has the power to put up laws or relations for itself, independently of neighboring states if there is no need for it there.
Really?
Interesting. I pegged you as a debate lover.
I kind of thought so too.
Really? I only ever enter debate topics to point out fallacies or suggest ways to refine arguments, sometimes toss in my own opinion, and leave. I don't mind watching/listening to debates, but I don't like taking part in them.
I appreciate debate more as a mental exercise than anything else. It forces me to evaluate my views and think carefully about what I believe- and why. It is an important part of being an educated citizen, I think. If no one ever challenges your beliefs, you are more inclined to simply lean blindly on them.
I agree ^^^
Good practice here for when anyone might ask me in person.
I can take debating or leave it. :P A lot of times debates turn into more of a vocal war instead of a discussion of points.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on March 10, 2016, 03:53:16 PM
@Corn: Who doesn't like a bit of debate? It may sometimes get a bit contentious, but it's all in good fun. More importantly, debate helps us become more educated on both our views and the views of others. While debate won't likely cause anyone to change their position, it will make them think harder about it.
@Wylder Treejumper: Oh I'll debate alright, I'm happy to. On the other hand, I most decidedly do
not like debating things like this, as they easily turn out to be arguments, and also because I don't have much of an opinion. It's not my decision, I very highly doubt that I would realistically be able to change any of those laws. And if I could, I'm not sure I'd want the responsibility.
Quote from: Skarzs on March 10, 2016, 10:35:51 PM
I can take debating or leave it. :P A lot of times debates turn into more of a vocal war instead of a discussion of points.
Exactly.
I highly doubt the second amendment will be changed, and you probably don't have to worry about the police barging into your homes and trying to take your weapons. Mostly because the police are US citizens as well, and they have the same concerns.
BTW I like how you guys are debating about debates. It's kinda ironic.
(http://i.imgur.com/buG9KRJ.jpg)
Post that on some presidential candidate's site. xD
More like my Social Studies teacher's office. :P
(Sorry to Bump, but I needed to reply)
Warning: These are my Opinions
I honestly think that the most important thing we can do is ban (civilian use of) assault weapons. Yes, I know that it won't stop all people from getting them and doing bad things with them, but in most, not all, but most of these shootings, the shooter bought the guns legally. The shootings where the shooter had an assault rifle, were often more deadly. Take Orlando, the shooter bought the assault rifle and the handgun legally, (even though he was previously investigated by the FBI, but that's not a issue I'll discuss now) and killed 49 people. Also, assault rifles aren't very useful for hunting (unless you want to shoot every deer in the forest, or another hunter). Assault rifles for defense could easily hurt a bystander, and I'm not even saying that there should be a ban on all guns, just a ban on assault rifles and effective gun control measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html
If you are referring to automatic rifles as assault rifles, most people can't get them legally, unless they are in the military or are a gunsmith. If you are referring to semi-automatic rifles, a double-action (semi-automatic) pistol is no less dangerous.
Once again, the problem with banning something is that the good, law-abiding citizens will obey proper authority, but the ones who are lawbreakers will be more intent upon getting the thing that is banned. It happened with alcohol in 1920, it can happen with guns.
Whether for good or bad, banning or significantly restricting guns is a no-go in the United States. There's too many weapons out there in the country now, and a massive segment of the population devoted to owning them. We would have to have a shooting on the scale of Orlando every day before I think a decisive majority of the population would change their minds.
I wouldn't be hopeful that it would restrict the kind of violence we've seen at Orlando or Sandy Hook that much, though. It's my suspicion that the mass shootings would simply turn into mass bombings.
The Orlando shooter acquired his gun through legal means; you can't acquire a bomb through legal means.
The ingredients to develop simple bombs can be acquired from household or farm supplies. From what I heard, the Orlando shooter actually had a bomb vest, it simply didn't go off. Good luck trying to ban or restrict everything that could be used to make explosives.
Gun control would never work in America; the population is too attached to its guns for any gun control laws to ever be successful. I'm all for gun control in places where it makes sense, in America it won't do anything.
Tannerite is an explosive that is legal to buy, and while it is not as powerful as others, it is still explosive.
You can make gunpowder without having it buy much of anything.
Nitroglycerin can also be made at home, though legally you really should not give out the recipe.
Propane, petroleum, and other fossil fuels can also be used to devastating effect.
(The following is my opinion.)
See, here's the thing. It's entirely possible that shootings would turn to bombings. But people still use guns to kill other people, and that's not acceptable. Just because you can't fix a problem doesn't mean that there's no point trying. It's a lot easier to shoot someone than it is to bomb them. In America it wouldn't work at all to ban all guns for everyone, but there's certainly steps that ought to be taken to restrict their purpose by those most likely to use them for ill.
Someone who bought a gun three years ago might not be the same person they were at the present time. There is no way of knowing whether someone will or will not use their gun in a safe way in the future if they are perfectly fine at the time of purchase.
Background checks can't work for everyone because they check things that happened before, not at the present. I know a man who was in jail for several years, but having known him now for about eight, if I had kids I would trust him with them, despite background checks suggesting that he is more likely to commit a crime because of that jail time.
Similarly, an old man I knew for about six years, who was in seemingly fine condition of both body and mind, ended up stabbing his daughter to death last year. Up until that point, no one would have suspected him to be capable or willing to do such a thing.
Be that as it may, those are specific cases. More careful background checks won't fix everything, but it's a step in a right direction. If a law like that can stop even a few would-be gunners, it's worth it.
A lot of shooters aren't very old, though, so they wouldn't necessarily have anything that might say they would have a tendency for such violence.
Again: A system doesn't have to filter out every possible criminal in order to be worth something.
Obviously I'm quite detached from this whole debate, but if there's one thing Australians can maybe take a "moral high ground" on worldwide, it's our gun control (and considering our human rights record, there's very little else), so I thought maybe this third party perspective could add something. I acknowledge I may not have total understanding of the cultural differences and implications of the debate, but I thought it'd be worth adding an example of how gun control laws worked amazingly here. Ask just about any Australian about gun control laws and they'll say that (a) we did the right thing and (b) America is crazy (sorry folks :P). It's probably the one thing Australians can almost unanimously agree on and feel proud about. I don't want to seem aggressive, so I'll try reserve such judgements. (By the way, if you're okay with dealing with some pretty vulgar language, type in "Jim Jefferies gun control" on YouTube for a video with some pretty convincing arguments delivered with humour that I may try summarise on here later without the obscenities. I won't put a link in case an accidental unprepared click leads to offence, but I'd highly recommend people who aren't hurt by extreme language.) Some of you may be aware of our gun control history, but for those that aren't...
In April 1996 in a town called Port Arthur in the state of Tasmania, Australia suffered what was the largest scale mass shooting in world history until the recent shooting in Orlando. 35 people were killed and 23 were injured. Following this, our (conservative) government of the time passed strict gun control legislation (and ensured state governments passed mirror laws), which included requiring a license to hold a gun, age restrictions etc. This was considered political suicide at the time- it was a very unpopular decision, and state premiers who participated in passing legislation (for example, Queensland) practically lost elections on the issue. In the 18 years before Port Arthur, we had 13 mass shootings, so it wasn't an uncommon event. Since these laws, we have not had a single one. Not only this, but the overall rate of firearm violence has decreased dramatically (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-23/howard's-post-port-arthur-gun-laws-work,-researchers-say/7535690), and the suicide by gun rate has also dropped dramatically (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/the-rate-of-all-suicides-and-homicides-in-australia-has-declined-since-the-gun-buyback-20160622-gpp4wp.html). I think that's really saying something about the effectiveness of gun control laws. And Australia is not an outlier here (http://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world-43590).
By the way, it's still legal to own a gun in Australia (pretty much every farmer has one), the screening process and laws on carrying and keeping one is just much more rigorous to ensure they don't get in the wrong hands. There's also a national database keeping track of who owns a gun, and any changes to what they carry must be notified to the authorities. Also, as far as I'm aware, assault rifles and basically anything beyond hand guns are outright banned for non-military folks. Here's Wikipedia's article on our laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia).
I know that there are valid arguments against gun control, and again I don't pretend to have a total understanding of the complexities of the issue, but from my perspective I look at the frequency of gun-related tragedies in the US and just feel gutted that they're so preventable but little happens. I'll also just say that I tend to be more left-wing on issues, so there may be some bias here, but I think the evidence does help support my argument. I really hope I'm not coming across as demeaning or anything like that (if this is taken badly I will likely edit it heavily), I just wanted to add my own thoughts on the problem. (In case you can't tell, I'm in the "lover of political debate" camp. It's where I thrive.)
By the way, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to make sure things don't get out of hand, but so far the conversation seems respectful enough.
In America, the issue is more complicated because it is a Constitutional right, and the Founding Fathers recognized the practical right to revolution. Do I hope to see that right ever used? I do not. But, it is always a possibility, and a revolution must have weapons.
Quote from: Wylder Treejumper on June 24, 2016, 03:53:49 PM
In America, the issue is more complicated because it is a Constitutional right, and the Founding Fathers recognized the practical right to revolution. Do I hope to see that right ever used? I do not. But, it is always a possibility, and a revolution must have weapons.
For sure, I recognise that this as a legitimate argument and if that ever happened then I'd probably support the revolution (depending on the circumstances). At the same time, though, when the US constitution was written technology was not as advanced as it was now, and I think laws need to be updated to meet modern times. Muskets were still the thing, which can do a lot less damage than semi-automatic assault rifles. Also, the government has drones and tanks now, so it would be pretty difficult to overthrow them now. I definitely think gun laws can change without nullifying the second amendment, it just takes proper background checks and restrictions on certain classes of firearm to make a world of difference. People can still have guns, just make it harder for the wrong people to get them.
And one more thing: amendments can change, like the amendment on the prohibition of alcohol did. Hence why they're called "amendments". ;)
The baby of liberals and the blood enemy of conservatives in the US: a repeal of the Second Amendment. Now that, my friend, is dangerous ground. You would not get very far.
I'm pretty sure if there was a revolution that began in the US, like another civil war, the armed forces would take no part of it because they are just as much citizens as the rest of us, and should not as any single unit move against their own brothers and sisters. Even if the government wants them to.
I would like to note that bows can be fired three to four times more quickly than muskets, and are equally capable of killing, even if they are slower than a semi-automatic.
Quote from: Skarzs on June 24, 2016, 04:42:43 PM
I'm pretty sure if there was a revolution that began in the US, like another civil war, the armed forces would take no part of it because they are just as much citizens as the rest of us, and should not as any single unit move against their own brothers and sisters. Even if the government wants them to.
I would like to note that bows can be fired three to four times more quickly than muskets, and are equally capable of killing, even if they are slower than a semi-automatic.
The difference is that bows take years of rigorous training to use them well, and an average person would be able to use a musket capably within a few months.
Whether they should and whether they would are two different things entirely, though. Furthermore, it all depends on the idea of legitimacy. The Civil War could be considered a revolution, but I wouldn't say it was for legitimate reasons. If the Armed Forces didn't consider the revolution legitimate, bingo that's another Civil War.
The whole idea that gun control will stop mass shootings is kind of vetoed when you consider that France has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe and over a hundred people got shot not too long ago. If someone really wants to shoot people, no matter what country they're in, or how strict the gun laws are they are going to be able to get their hands on a gun if they try hard enough.
Now I've been to some places. *CoughArkansasCough* in the US where you can go to the local drug store and buy yourself some hunting rifles. And not only that but I've been to hundreds of pawn shops that sell guns left and right without hardly a care in the world.
I do believe that background checks should be mandatory, and, they ought to be good background checks, but let's face it they wont stop impulse shooters. Plus everything resides on how good the background check is, and whether the person checking can be trusted.
The problem is kind of unsolvable, no matter what law, restriction or enforcement is set in place you're not going to solve the problem, if anything you'll make it worse. People have a right to defend their homes, and if a solution comes up that allows them to do so, but doesn't infringe on their other rights then I'd back it full heartedly.
I believe Sand is right when he says that the problem is pretty well unsolvable in our current situation. There are too many reasons the current "solutions" can't fully work.
Unsolvable? Sure. It's not possible to stop all violent people from being violent. But we can hinder violent people, and perhaps in doing so stop some of them. Consider: Could a terrorist with a bow cause nearly as much loss of life as a terrorist with an automatic rifle? Dubious, especially if they haven't trained with a bow for a long, long time. Could they still kill a few people? Possibly. But just because you can't fix a problem doesn't mean any effort to improve the situation is worthless.
I don't think the comment about bows was in the context of modern gun control, it was in relation to the Second Amendment at the time of the Founders.
Anyways. Recognizing the practical right to revolution, it is necessary to have weapons that would allow revolution. Otherwise, the Founders could have said, "The right to bear swords shall not be infringed upon." A sword was a weapon, just not as good as a musket. However, I think this debate is becoming too academic.
@Rusvul Exactly, that is why I support background checks, but like I mentioned before, it's almost impossible to own a gun in France, but they still had mass shootings, and shootings in general. A wide ban on guns wont solve the problem, just as making guns legal to everyone wont solve the problem.
We could hinder the "Would be Criminals" by giving Police more powers which would take away from other personal rights, like the Fourth Amendment. I think the biggest problem in this debate is that there is no compromise between the Conservatives and the Liberals. No middle ground where everyone gives a little.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on June 24, 2016, 08:59:59 PM
@Rusvul
We could hinder the "Would be Criminals" by giving Police more powers which would take away from other personal rights, like the Fourth Amendment. I think the biggest problem in this debate is that there is no compromise between the Conservatives and the Liberals. No middle ground where everyone gives a little.
Not sure giving the police more power would be wise at this point, considering the recent controversies about police militarisation and brutality. :-\
@DanielofRedwall: Yeah, but if you think about it this sort of police brutality isn't new... In the 60's during the Civil Rights Movement and such there were quite a few police actions that were clearly racist. It's simply that nowadays racism is much more a minority (although still strong...) so when something does happen people respond differently.
What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.
Quote from: Sagetip on July 03, 2016, 02:17:47 PM
......
What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.
A
few?! Sage, police killings and beatings have been going up steadily, many more than have been reported on the news I'm sure. Giving the police even
more leeway isn't the answer.
I just meant that incidents like Ferguson are still a huge minority.
Interesting bit of trivia. Which country in the world has the biggest prison population, at over 2 million people? Per capita, it's the second highest in the world.
Answer
Our own lovely United States, the "Land of the Free".
This might not accurately account for "undocumented prisoners", whether there or in the countries it's being compared to, but needless to say it's still extremely high by anyone's standards.
I think part of the trouble with the modern police force is that officers have stopped feeling that they're a part of the communities they police. They simply don't identify with the people they work with. It's "us vs. them". If you were an officer and you really cared about the community, your first instinct would
not be to respond with lethal force as soon as something twitches. Modern police have become infamous for killing citizens' animals at the drop of a hat, just for looking at them the wrong way -- needless to say, you would never kill someone's dog if you expected to ever interact with them again. Also, they (like some of the other most notorious government agencies) aren't accountable to anyone. The police take care of their own, and every officer knows that they will never need to answer for anything except the most egregious (and best recorded -- there's a reason why officers don't like people pointing cameras their way) abuses of authority. If the police go to the wrong house, kick the door down and run in in full riot gear with machine guns ready, and kill the bleary-eyed homeowner who woke up, totally confused, at their intrusion and (very reasonably) attempted to defend himself, it was "just a mistake", and chances are there won't be any significant disciplinary action.
There are good and bad officers. There's at least two people I know and respect who're in the force and I trust them to take care of business in an even-handed fashion. Honestly, I think that's true for most officers. I feel that, usually, if you mind your own business and your manners, you'll get along okay. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't also some thrill-happy wannabe soldiers and thugs looking for an excuse to go on a power trip. Giving all police everywhere a blank check to do what they want is a recipe for disaster when it's been proven that some departments can't handle the resources they have in a responsible manner.
I think the first step is to make sure that officers are involved in the towns and with the people they're supposed to oversee. You're not going to go giving everybody the beatdown if you're likely to meet up with them or their parents in the store or at a community event later in the week. Likewise, it's harder to look somebody in the eye and lie about a fellow officer's misdeeds if you know how that citizen or their daughter or their son was hurt by it. Officers are not "holier than thou"; they are public
servants. They should respect the public, their time, and their property as they would their own.
Secondly, the police probably don't need so many toys. There's nothing wrong with the traditional, stereotypical "man in blue"; giving him full riot gear for what should be routine business is begging for trouble. The logic behind SWAT teams is "use it or lose it" -- so they very frequently do, which usually results in extreme overkill. I understand there are cases where it's nice to have that extra armor, but if not having it makes the police think a little more carefully before barging into each situation, potentially saving some relatively innocent people's lives, it's worth the extra risk.
Finally, financial considerations should never be an issue. Being an officer is a
calling,
not a career. If you're doing it for the money or the job security, you're in it for the wrong reasons and should consider another line of work. Officers should not be incentivized to do their jobs a certain way. Traffic ticket revenue, for example, shouldn't go to the police. If somebody's car is confiscated, the police shouldn't get a second look at it afterwards. Their first and last thought when dealing with a situation should be about
whether it is the right thing to do, not how it helps the department's bottom line.
An analysis of the police department's results should be based not on how many crooks they catch or tickets they give out, it should be based on the crime rate of the community. The officer's job, first and foremost, should be working to protect people and make their town a better place. It's about
prevention, not dramatic reactions to crime after it's already taken place.
/me accidentally bumps a controversial topic.
Whoops. ;)
Personally, I don't see why the second amendment should be removed. In fact, guns should be used more. The Middle East has a much smaller number of school shootings than the United States because the teachers carry rifles.
If my teachers carried rifles I wouldn't feel safe to go to school.
My school has police, though, and they have guns.
Just out of curiosity, Ash, why wouldn't you feel safe? You really think your teachers would shoot you?
I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.
I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.
Knives are tools. . .
We're talking about different kinds of knife.
People don't typically tend to carry vegetable knives around with them.
I carry a pocket knife because sometimes I need it at work, to screw in a screw quickly when I don't have a screwdriver, to pry things apart, or even when taking lunch and I want to cut my sandwich in half.
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 26, 2016, 05:44:58 PM
I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.
I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.
Well, you can't argue against an opinion, especially one that's rooted in the belief that weapons = killing = bad. Except that's all that is, an opinion. Though I do find your objection to knives rather foolish. Kitchen knives, and flip knives have a massive variety of uses, and they aren't solely designed to kill, in fact most knives aren't even designed as weapons but as useful, and sometimes necessary tools. But that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that you, (I'm assuming anyway), are perfectly okay with people keeping butter knives, bread knives, even ornamental knives, but if your carrying a knife you consider that bad?
Anyway.
On the flipside we have guns, whose purpose is to put a deadly projectile downrange. They are made to kill. That's their purpose as a weapon. Your statement, as it can hardly be called an argument, is kind of like saying you dislike hammers because they are made to bang on nails and only trained, government workers should use them. Its your opinion sure, but hardly an amazing argument, and if your hypothetical goal was to remove hammers from the hands of citizens, and make sure only governmentally trained professionals use them it wouldn't convince very many people.
Which brings us in a full circle. Guns are weapons, true, weapons are made to kill, true, but that doesn't make them fundamentally bad. What makes a weapon bad is who uses it. Which is probably why you are okay with soldiers carrying weapons. But even if they are in the hands of say, "Your brother," does that make the weapon bad? No. Just like the swastika isn't fundamentally something bad, its just a picture on a red flag. But it becomes a mark of evil when Nazi's carry it.
The argument shouldn't be about whether you or anyone is comfortable around guns or not, but whether its necessary, and practical for civilians to carry them. Comfort and feelings have very little to do with it. Luckily you live in a pseudo free nation, so you don't have to worry about it.
Personally I think there is enough evidence, and base practicality to prove without a doubt that law abiding citizens should carry any weapon they deem necessary to provide domestic defense and assurance against possible tyranny and threat of attack. Which is why I support the continuation of the second amendment, and the abolishment of foolish restrictions.
Its a right that needs to be exercised, and its a right that American's boasts of almost independently.
Quote from: Peony on July 03, 2016, 02:46:31 PM
Quote from: Sagetip on July 03, 2016, 02:17:47 PM
......
What I'm saying is that a few police officers who used their weapons to hurt or kill an innocent shouldn't affect how we treat the rest.
A few?! Sage, police killings and beatings have been going up steadily, many more than have been reported on the news I'm sure. Giving the police even more leeway isn't the answer.
This is untrue, and has been proved false on multiple occasions. As for giving police more leeway, well that's an argument that should be developed state by state, as their individual governments have a better understanding of what each state needs. Besides that doesn't really have anything to do with the second amendment.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 26, 2016, 07:21:39 PM
Quote from: Jet the binturong on September 26, 2016, 05:44:58 PM
I wouldn't trust my own brother with a gun. I don't want to be around guns that aren't ornamental. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want to be around people who own guns. Their only function is to kill. That's the point of them. The same way I don't want to hang around people who carry knives. They're weapons, they belong on a wall or in the hands of the military and nowhere else.
I'm not against people owning weapons, I just don't want them to carry them around me.
Well, you can't argue against an opinion, especially one that's rooted in the belief that weapons = killing = bad. Except that's all that is, an opinion. Though I do find your objection to knives rather foolish. Kitchen knives, and flip knives have a massive variety of uses, and they aren't solely designed to kill, in fact most knives aren't even designed as weapons but as useful, and sometimes necessary tools. But that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that you, (I'm assuming anyway), are perfectly okay with people keeping butter knives, bread knives, even ornamental knives, but if your carrying a knife you consider that bad? Depends what kind of knife, but essentially, yes. There's no practical purpose to carrying around a hunting knife or a switchblade, for example.
Anyway.
On the flipside we have guns, whose purpose is to put a deadly projectile downrange. They are made to kill. That's their purpose as a weapon. Your statement, as it can hardly be called an argument, is kind of like saying you dislike hammers because they are made to bang on nails and only trained, government workers should use them. Its your opinion sure, but hardly an amazing argument, and if your hypothetical goal was to remove hammers from the hands of citizens, and make sure only governmentally trained professionals use them it wouldn't convince very many people. Except no one is trying to get guns banned outright. That's what "second amendment defenders" just don't get. We're not trying to take away your guns unless you fail to pass some very reasonable background checks. That's all. I'm not against people owning guns, but having no gun control at all is just ridiculous.
Which brings us in a full circle. Guns are weapons, true, weapons are made to kill, true, but that doesn't make them fundamentally bad. What makes a weapon bad is who uses it. Which is probably why you are okay with soldiers carrying weapons. But even if they are in the hands of say, "Your brother," does that make the weapon bad? No. Just like the swastika isn't fundamentally something bad, its just a picture on a red flag. But it becomes a mark of evil when Nazi's carry it. About the Swastika, correct, in fact it used to be a symbol of peace before Hitler decided to appropriate it - it is, in fact, fundamentally good. However an object designed to kill is fundamentally bad. Doesn't mean it can't be used by good people for good reasons, but it is an object created to do wrong. A picture is just a picture. A gun is something which is fundamentally for evil acts.
The argument shouldn't be about whether you or anyone is comfortable around guns or not, but whether its necessary, and practical for civilians to carry them. Comfort and feelings have very little to do with it. Luckily you live in a pseudo free nation, so you don't have to worry about it.
Personally I think there is enough evidence, and base practicality to prove without a doubt that law abiding citizens should carry any weapon they deem necessary to provide domestic defense and assurance against possible tyranny and threat of attack. Which is why I support the continuation of the second amendment, and the abolishment of foolish restrictions.
Its a right that needs to be exercised, and its a right that American's boasts of almost independently.
To close reiterate: No one wants to ban guns. It's not even illegal to own one here in the UK, providing you have a license. But in America, your gun control is incredibly lax. Almost every shooting carried out on American soil in the past - let's say decade - has been by someone who has purchased a gun completely legally. And if you're willing to shoot someone for no reason, there's clearly something wrong with your mental state - something which should prevent you from being able to own a gun.
I don't want to quote that whole thing, so I'll address each statement in turn.
1: There are practical purposes of carrying around such knives. Cutting wires, removing splinters, slicing cardboard, and many more. The practicality only stops when your imagination stops. But whatever, your opinion, your opinion.
2: Except there are people trying to get guns banned outright. Saying otherwise is like saying there aren't racist people in the world. Its simply not true. (On a side note the Supreme Court agreed, that it would only make sense to abolish all of the Second Amendment, and that banning only some guns would be unconstitutional. Its either amend the amendment, or leave it as is.) And its also not true that there is no gun control or background checks. To purchase an automatic weapon of any kind requires a strict federal background check. Most legal dealers require you to fill out information, and sometimes they even preform background checks before they sell weapons. And I'm not against background checks, very few people are. I'm against foolish bans of certain weapon types, and ridiculous restrictions. I think as its our constitutional right, these bans shouldn't be allowed.
3: No, that's not true. There is nothing in swords, spears, or any other weapon, of any kind that's fundamentally bad. They are designed to kill, sure, but that doesn't make them evil. There is nothing demonic or magical about a gun or sword or any other weapon that makes it bad. That's opinionated nonsense.
4: This is where I just don't understand pro- gun control arguments, because the US already has some 2000 laws regarding guns, and particular restrictions.
Now first off I think that if someone is mentally unstable, they shouldn't own a firearm. Easy decision.
But you also made the claim that most would-be criminals usually get their guns legally. Okay just so you know, this isn't true, this argument is inflated by the fact that the number one gun related death in the US is suicide, and suicide is usually done with a legally obtained weapon. Second, those who want to kill others, and do get their guns legally aren't criminals yet. Buying a gun with the intent to kill isn't a criminal act, until the deed is done.
Besides its not so cut and dry to pick out someone who wants to kill people. They don't go around with a tag over their heads saying, "I'm here to commit murder." Unless they are really, really stupid, in which case they get caught.
So to reiterate, there are people to want to ban all guns, most amendment defenders do agree with the "idea" of background checks, even if they don't think they'd work. And no, an object designed to kill isn't fundamentally bad. That's your opinion, not actual fact.
If we accept that killing is bad, then we must also accept that something designed to kill is bad. That doesn't mean that using them is always bad, just that they were created for evil purposes. The first person to invent a gun obviously didn't go "oh this is going to be great for helping old ladies into carriages" he thought "this will give me an edge over my enemies."
The second amendment was drafted in a time when guns were single-shot only, and therefore much less dangerous. Laws must evolve with the times; allowing someone to buy an assault rifle is a recipe for disaster. You can't even buy a Kinder egg in America, but assault rifles? Nope they're perfectly fine. It's like drinking laws. You can join the army with parental consent at sixteen, smoke and drive at eighteen, but you can't buy alcohol (which is much less dangerous than all of those things) until you're twenty-one? Ridiculous.
Pulse Nightclub shooter - acquired his gun legally.
The most recent school shooter I've heard of also acquired his gun legally.
That guy who shot up that black church too.
And anyway, should suicides not also be prevented? You're not going to commit suicide without some serious mental issues - issues that, again, should prevent you from being able to buy a gun.
If someone has a mental illness that has even a one percent chance of turning them suicidal or violent, they should not be able to own guns.
And I know that there are already gun control laws in effect, it's just that they are rarely properly practiced or enforced.
So? You're arguing something absolutely asinine Jet. And whether you think weapons are inherently bad or not is your own position, and has nothing to do with gun control.
Yeah, you know back in the good old days when guns only shot one bullet, those real smart guys decided the right to bear arms was a human right, and had no idea that guns may never get any better then that.
Seriously? You realize that there were guns that could shoot up to twenty times relatively swiftly without reloading, and the founding fathers knew about them, and tried to purchase some for the Continental Militia? You realize that the writers of the constitution were aware of cannons, and agreed that they could be used by civilians to defend their ships from pirates? You really think that they were so blind, as to not realize that men are constantly trying to find better ways to kill each other? Were you aware George Washington himself fought against several rebellions, who were armed thanks to the Second Amendment?
No, they realized all of this, but they defined it as a human right anyway. Because they realized that as a human right it isn't up the government to regulate or control this, but up to the individual. Kinder eggs, cars, heath insurance aren't human rights. Owning a weapon is. But here you are arguing against all guns, I thought you were just for reasonable background checks?
As for these last points, Jet, you mentioned three cases, and a wish to stop suicide, as I already said, you don't become a criminal for buying a gun, you become a criminal, for using it irresponsibly. Laws don't stop criminals, laws exist to deter law abiding citizens from doing something that is considered wrong. Buying a gun isn't wrong.
Quote
And I know that there are already gun control laws in effect, it's just that they are rarely properly practiced or enforced.
Are you serious dude? Are you seriously saying that? Not only is it false, but it completely counteracts your argument,
for more gun laws! A more legitimate statement on your part would be more to the order of: "Gun control laws exist, but are inadequate for what I think is reasonable restriction of firearms."
This is a debatable phrase, which I can understand and perhaps even agree with, if you could provide examples and evidence to back this case up. Whatever you said is just, bad.
What we can conclude from these last few posts is that I can't debate well when I'm tired and sick. Plus I've made so many spelling mistakes today my backspace got stuck. I even missed one. I can't even remember what that "close" in my first post was supposed to be about.
And since you won't change my position and I won't change yours, it's pointless to continue.
I disagree -Oddly enough- I think it is imperative that these kind of debates continue, it is important to hear the ideas and arguments from the other side. Often you can concrete your own beliefs or be forced to reconsider or rationalize what you believe in. It helps provide material for future arguers, even if it doesn't sway someone initially.
Also it helps build wit and argument ability. But whatever, I cant force you to debate me.
You got destroyed bro!
I go to school for one day and look what happens... :P
I agree completely with Sand. It is our right to own guns. We fought for that freedom long ago and no one should be able to take that away. The fact that anyone would try and take away our ability to own guns is infuriating.
An argument can never be won.
"A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still."
Quote from: Skarzs on September 26, 2016, 07:13:21 PM
I carry a pocket knife because sometimes I need it at work, to screw in a screw quickly when I don't have a screwdriver, to pry things apart, or even when taking lunch and I want to cut my sandwich in half.
Do you wash it in between the screwing and the sandwich cutting? ;)
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 26, 2016, 08:24:48 PM
1: There are practical purposes of carrying around such knives. Cutting wires, removing splinters, slicing cardboard, and many more. The practicality only stops when your imagination stops. But whatever, your opinion, your opinion.
Not really. Switchblades are concealed weapons with no practical purposes that something like a multitool can't accomplish. Hunting knives should only really come in handy if... well... you're hunting.
Quote from: LT Sandpaw on September 26, 2016, 08:24:48 PM
2: Except there are people trying to get guns banned outright. Saying otherwise is like saying there aren't racist people in the world. Its simply not true. (On a side note the Supreme Court agreed, that it would only make sense to abolish all of the Second Amendment, and that banning only some guns would be unconstitutional. Its either amend the amendment, or leave it as is.) I'm against foolish bans of certain weapon types, and ridiculous restrictions. I think as its our constitutional right, these bans shouldn't be allowed.
Y'see, the problem with this statement is that there's a big difference between, say, your uncle's old .22 and an AK-47. The entire reason fully automatic rifles and suchlike are banned in Australia, compared to semi-automatics which require a license, is because of how much greater the destructive capability is. Automatic guns are typically more powerful, and can fire faster (obviously). In other words, if somebody with the intent to commit mass murder is going to get their hands on a firearm, its better that they aren't getting ahold of an assault rifle, or something along those lines.
Quote from: Peony on September 26, 2016, 05:26:20 PM
Just out of curiosity, Ash, why wouldn't you feel safe? You really think your teachers would shoot you?
What Jet said.
Actually, automatic weapons are mostly banned, except for a few, very outdated weapons. In fact, the clamor is over semi-automatic weapons, such as the AR-15. I can find of no shooting in the U.S. using automatic weapons in the past 10 years.
Furthermore, while more or stricter background checks could help, only about 30% of former shooters would have been disqualified by them, with 11% (of all shooters) by mental disability (the rest by convicted felony etc.). Complicating the problem, 70% of all mass shootings are domestic violence incidents and don't take place in public places at all, but in homes.
In short, I disagree with banning weapons, and stricter licensing can only do so much, so I'd love for people to stop proclaiming it as a compromise panacea. What we need is something different, but what it is I can't figure out yet.
And I really do disagree with that idea about knives. I've found innumerable uses for knives of all sizes and shapes.
(Useful resources: Detailed Analysis (http://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/) and Infographic (http://everytownresearch.org/mass-shootings/))