Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 12-21-2012, 11:19 AM
Dragotech's Avatar
Dragotech Offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: *Points* A rock!!
Posts: 3,120
Default Re: Guns in America

In Australia? Maybe, I somehow believe that there is a distinct difference between Australia and the United States aside from geographical location.
People from there are fairly different.

I believe you brought up an age restriction of 21 in your initial post, correct Typhlosion? By the end of the next year I will be 19 and I will be a fully fledged soldier of the United States. Are you saying I should not be issued a gun for those times when I must deploy over to Afghanistan, where I may add rocket attacks and gun fights are apart of the daily routine and that's not an exaggeration? In fact, it is probably an understatement.


Edit: Apparently I was slow to post.
I actually feel insulted reading that.
__________________
"I was talking with a friend, and we ended up with Zeus being Mr. Clean and going around banishing dust with a single wipe"
-Eternal Moonlight
VPP stats Elder Scroll Club

Last edited by Dragotech; 12-21-2012 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-21-2012, 02:06 PM
brandon_g's Avatar
brandon_g Offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 1,750
Send a message via Yahoo to brandon_g Send a message via Skype™ to brandon_g
Default Re: Guns in America

I honestly must post on this one before doing my normal routine... First off gun control in america is not strict enough! Its crazy that people that are mentally ill. even though they have no criminal history can purchase a gun to begin with. I think their needs to be some massive pysch evalutions involved in the very 1st steps of buying or getting a gun license. Becuase people with mentalhealth issues are not always in their right state of mind. Having a gun in possiesoncan be highly dangerous to them.

Than the second step should be getting finger printed and pictured and put in some data base as a gun owner.

the third step is gun classes and renewal

the last step is assuring people must have a valid gun linsence to buy a gun from a store.
__________________
If anyone truly loved this site... then they will not allow it to die inactive. I KNOW IT CANNOT BE SAVED! But it is still up... and it is not to late log in again and let her die active.

SO PLEASE STAY AT WHATEVER FORUM YOU RELOCATED TO, BUT BE WITH PE2K AS WELL!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-21-2012, 02:25 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt Shadow View Post
There was a shooting in Australia 16 years ago. 35 were killed and 23 injured. As a result of this the government payed civilians to hand in their guns. There were then laws on guns out in place. Yes, you can still get guns illegally.
Gun-related deaths in USA: 10.2 per 100000
Gun-related deaths in Australia: 1.05 per 100000
Gun-related deaths in UK: 0.25 per 100000 people (for sealboy)
Yes, even if there are gun-control laws, you can still get them illegally. But the bottom line is that it works,
Sure, gun-related deaths will drop if you put laws on guns. How about crime related deaths in general? Hate to say it dude, but just because you've wiped out one means of committing murder doesn't mean the person is suddenly going to become sweet and mellow and decide not to go on a homicidal rampage. They'll just find another way to do it. In any case, most deaths from gun violence are from gang-related incidents. I think it's more of a matter of keeping those under control. Again, it's more a matter of crime control, not gun control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak View Post
how can we live in a society that condones public usage of tools of destruction for the purpose of self-defense, when in reality they are just about never used for that purpose. how is this even a debate.
You're right, we don't condone public usage of tools of destruction. People don't go walking around with guns all the time. Again, I think a lot of the people against this are mostly in the mindset that people would go utterly nuts if everyone carried a gun like life is just some bad, Hollywood action movie free for all where you shot to kill and winner takes all. They also seem to think that school shootings of this magnitude happen on a daily or even hourly basis just because guns are allowed to be purchased. Incidents like this are definitely not common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak View Post
america's just dumb and likes to rely on traditional values that don't apply throughout changing times. were guns useful to protect one's self back in the Frontier days where grizzly bears and native american attacks were actual threats? sure. do we need guns now for the purpose of self defense? I don't know, does it feel like the early 1800's to you?

thanks
Please, if you don't like America, then don't ever feel the need to stay here. There's plenty of other countries out there that will gladly take those "freedoms" off your back if you no longer want them. I love how a lot of people call America "dumb" and "stupid" and generally treat this country like it's a pile of crap, but boy, the rest of the world would sure miss us if we were suddenly gone. See World War II to understand what happens when we leave the rest of the world to its own vices. Seriously. Either love this country or get out.

In the meantime, there's plenty of people that rely on hunting rifles to protect their livestock. Not everyone lives in an urban or suburban area like you probably do. And not everyone becomes a homicidal freak upon purchasing a firearm. Yes, it's something you need to be mature and responsible with. And I agree, it is something that only a person of sane mind and knowledge should be allowed to have. Same thing with a car. And with fire. In the right hands, a gun can be used responsibly as a tool of defense. In the wrong hands, yes, it is a deadly weapon. But there are countless other everyday objects that could be used as weapons if used irresponsibly.

If someone was out there trying to burglarize my home while I was still inside or trying to rape my wife or murder my kids, I'd like to think I'd have something to defend myself and my family with rather than a liberal's philosophy and/or a weeping plea in hopes he'll change his mind. And don't get me started on police response times. Until the day the local police force has teleportation devices, they still won't be able to get to the scene of the crime instantly. And obviously, you're not going to call up the cops because a wild coyote is harassing your chicken coop. But it would look rather silly if you were forced to use a steak knife on said coyote because it was the only weapon you had on you.

But in all seriousness, if you don't like the gun laws in the US and think life's better in another country, by all means, go there. I accept the fact that most people who own guns know how to handle them and are of sane mind to not just use them on innocent, every day people. I just appreciate we have the freedom of choice when it comes to that, even if you don't.

Yes, the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from a corrupt government. And sure, we've had the luxury of not having to do that lately. Take a look around and you'll see plenty of other countries that haven't had it so lucky. But I'd like to think that if the absolute worst happened and our homeland military defense fell short, we wouldn't be completely and utterly helpless against whatever atrocities another invading country had in store for us. But if you feel more secure with that liberal philosophy at your side instead of a real means of defense, well, good luck to you and hope you never need it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-21-2012, 07:03 PM
Tasteless's Avatar
Tasteless Offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 769
Send a message via AIM to Tasteless
Default Re: Guns in America

We already plain and simple do NOT have the right to rise up and overthrow the government by force, the second amendment is mostly just an illusion of that right. Guns or no guns, you know it'd be put down by the government and military with an equally excessive form of force.

You can live in constant fear of that fact, or you can enter the modern era, where we have decided to make changes in our government through a democratic process, rather than by making a riot and blowing everyone's heads off.

Yes, you can kill someone without a gun. But think about it. The number of people who make conscious plans to go kill a number of people are a special breed of psychotic that don't necessarily reflect most people, or even most gun deaths. Things like this school shooting happen, but they are rare. Most murders are at least semi-spontaneous. The most likely person to kill you is your spouse, actually.

Having a gun lowers the risk to your person in committing a murder, increases your success chance, and makes it a faster process that is easier to do in a "twitch-reflex" fashion. We're not all hardened killers. To be blunt, most of us don't have the balls to kill someone with our bear hands or get up into hand-to-hand range and try to slice them up with a knife whilst getting blood all over us. Most of us are cowards.

It's so much easier to kill with a gun, and the easier something is to do, the more likely someone will do it. You come home, find your husband in bed with another (man, woman, whatever you are), and you have a gun handy already? I would bet there is a much higher chance that you are going to try to kill him than if you had to do it with your bare hands.

Guns are the great equalizer. They let you murder someone you could never take in a fight, someone you wouldn't even try to jump with bare fists. Someone 2 feet taller than you, or 50lbs more muscular than you.

To otherwise kill someone you can't take in a fight takes careful planning and the element of surprise. The longer you have to think about something like this, the less likely you will do it. You are more likely to kill in a blind rage, you're more likely to kill IMMEDIATELY when someone pisses you off, while the adrenaline is still there, making you brave.

When you sit around and think about it, you start asking yourself a lot of questions:
+Do I really want to do this?
+Can I even get away with this?
+Do I want to spend my life in jail?
+Is my plan even going to succeed? I could go to jail and not even kill the **%#)$!

And the more the average person thinks about it, the less likely they are to do it. Having a gun in your pocket completely jumps past this. You can do it right now, while you're still mad. This is the only reason having a gun as a weapon instead of just a knife, sword, beer bottle, or bare hands is even significant. It significantly reduces the time needed to make a successful kill, and as humans we all often need time to weigh significant decisions in our lives. That's why there's often waiting periods for "big deal" things like getting a sex change, or, in my state (California), buying a gun. We still have guns. We don't allow mental patients or convicted felons to have them, you need a permit to carry concealed, assault weapons are completely banned, all guns can only be sold by licensed dealers, you must show ID, and a background check is sent to the police from the dealer, along with a 10 day waiting period and the inability to purchase more than one gun during a 30 day period.

This is probably the model for the future of the US if we want to keep the right to have guns, and I don't know how anyone could really disagree with those things. Contrast this to other states, some in which 16 year-old kids can buy guns without their parents' permission and carry them legally on the streets.

I can defend myself without a gun. I have both pepper spray and a very effective stun gun, which I could use to non-lethally subdue a person entering my house or bothering me on the street. People like to raise the "Oh but what if it was you and you didn't have a gun????" question but really it's false to assume that a gun is the only way to defend yourself. I own weapons that are actually strictly for self-defense and in fact are non-lethal. You can not kill or even permanently injure someone with the type of stun gun I have. The voltage is only significant enough to cause intense pain and immobilize the person. A stun gun will put your butt on the ground immediately. The electrical current disrupts your brain's ability to give commands to your muscles, rendering you unable to move.

I would simply subdue you and call the police. I feel no need to murder murderers, any more than I feel the need to rob burglars, or rape rapists. It's just ridiculous. I am better than that.
__________________


Apparently 101% of all teenagers are homosexual. Who knew?

Last edited by Tasteless; 12-21-2012 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-21-2012, 07:09 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Guns in America

Japan would be a sufficient comparison when speaking per capita, since Japan has half the population of the United States. Japan's homicide rate is 0.3, multiplied by two is 0.6. In 2006, Japan had 3 shootings, multiplied by two is 6. America's homicide rate is 4.3. In 2006, two years after the ban on assault rifles expired, the U.S saw over 10,000 shootings. I'd say reduction in gun crime correlates to a reduction in overall crime. What's more, it makes it far harder for something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to occur again.

The second amendment was authored prior to a federal standing military, and was specifically intended for state-run militia. The second amendment:

Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This amendment was not fully accepted by the Supreme Court for the individual right to bear arms prior to 1977, when the National Rifle Association became co-opted by weapon manufacturers and lobbied the government. It is a no brainer that gun laws need to be strengthened, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. I propose the following laws:

Concealed weaponry is forbidden.
Weapons on federal property is forbidden.
Gun shows are forbidden.
The unlicensed, unauthorized, and/or online sale of ammunition is forbidden.
Depending on the firearm, a reasonable limit on ammunition is required.
Once ammunition is spent, casings must be returned to the company.
When a firearm is used, the citizen is required to file a report and to attend a firearm safety seminar.
An annual week-long firearm safety class is required.
A single weapon may only be registered to a single family.
The weapon may not be more than .20 caliber.
The weapon may not be semi or fully automatic.
The weapon cannot be a shotgun or rifle.
The firearm must be registered by the local, state, and federal police.
You may not have a history of mental illness.
You must have a filed psychiatric evaluation before legal possession of a firearm.
The firearm must be locked inside a bullet-proof case.
The police must check annually for possession of the firearm.
Justification is required for the possession of a firearm.
Weapons tax, ammunition tax, and discharge tax are mandatory, no exceptions.
Personal transfer of firearms is forbidden.
If the weapon is found in the possession of another individual, with unlawful transfer, both the owner and perpetrator will be sentenced for an appropriate time in federal prison.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:

Last edited by Teddiursa of the Sky; 12-21-2012 at 07:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-22-2012, 05:42 AM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
Japan would be a sufficient comparison when speaking per capita, since Japan has half the population of the United States. Japan's homicide rate is 0.3, multiplied by two is 0.6. In 2006, Japan had 3 shootings, multiplied by two is 6. America's homicide rate is 4.3. In 2006, two years after the ban on assault rifles expired, the U.S saw over 10,000 shootings. I'd say reduction in gun crime correlates to a reduction in overall crime. What's more, it makes it far harder for something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to occur again.

The second amendment was authored prior to a federal standing military, and was specifically intended for state-run militia. The second amendment:



This amendment was not fully accepted by the Supreme Court for the individual right to bear arms prior to 1977, when the National Rifle Association became co-opted by weapon manufacturers and lobbied the government. It is a no brainer that gun laws need to be strengthened, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. I propose the following laws:

Concealed weaponry is forbidden.
Weapons on federal property is forbidden.
Gun shows are forbidden.
The unlicensed, unauthorized, and/or online sale of ammunition is forbidden.
Depending on the firearm, a reasonable limit on ammunition is required.
Once ammunition is spent, casings must be returned to the company.
When a firearm is used, the citizen is required to file a report and to attend a firearm safety seminar.
An annual week-long firearm safety class is required.
A single weapon may only be registered to a single family.
The weapon may not be more than .20 caliber.
The weapon may not be semi or fully automatic.
The weapon cannot be a shotgun or rifle.
The firearm must be registered by the local, state, and federal police.
You may not have a history of mental illness.
You must have a filed psychiatric evaluation before legal possession of a firearm.
The firearm must be locked inside a bullet-proof case.
The police must check annually for possession of the firearm.
Justification is required for the possession of a firearm.
Weapons tax, ammunition tax, and discharge tax are mandatory, no exceptions.
Personal transfer of firearms is forbidden.
If the weapon is found in the possession of another individual, with unlawful transfer, both the owner and perpetrator will be sentenced for an appropriate time in federal prison.
Totally agree. There's nothing else to be said. I personally think you just said everything I was thinking.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-22-2012, 11:53 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Dredd View Post
Gun control laws have nothing to do with the problem. Most people that are using them for murder are using stolen guns or guns gotten in some illegal way. Making gun laws more strict would just give less people the option to protect themselves.

There use to be an old joke that went something like this.
"never go into a club that has metal detectors because all the people waiting outside know that you dont have one."
If that were true, gun homicide would be extremely high in countries that have strict firearm policies. But, that is simply not the case. For example, the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Since the regulations passed in 1996, Australia's homicide rate lowered by thirty times and the country has not seen a mass shooting since.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-22-2012, 12:04 PM
Cobalt Shadow's Avatar
Cobalt Shadow Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia the land of the kangaroos
Posts: 4,079
Send a message via MSN to Cobalt Shadow Send a message via Skype™ to Cobalt Shadow
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
If that were true, gun homicide would be extremely high in countries that have strict firearm policies. But, that is simply not the case. For example, the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Since the regulations passed in 1996, Australia's homicide rate lowered by thirty times and the country has not seen a mass shooting since.
Sad thing is that even though it does work, people don't want to believe it works. The statistics say it all.
__________________

Dragotech, Eternal Moonlight and I are the PE2k Wolf Pack! Fear Fredward the Sparklepire, Bidoof the Soulless and Slenderfairy!
Banner Made by Me
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-22-2012, 07:41 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt Shadow View Post
Sad thing is that even though it does work, people don't want to believe it works. The statistics say it all.
Many gun supporters question the legitimacy of the studies. Despite how much I can assure them that, when statistics agree between federal bureaus and university studies, I am on the correct position, they persist in the delusion that an increase in firearms would somehow result in a safer society.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:

Last edited by Teddiursa of the Sky; 12-22-2012 at 07:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-23-2012, 11:34 PM
goldwynaut's Avatar
goldwynaut Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Your Mom's House
Posts: 5,670
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragotech View Post
I believe you brought up an age restriction of 21 in your initial post, correct Typhlosion? By the end of the next year I will be 19 and I will be a fully fledged soldier of the United States. Are you saying I should not be issued a gun for those times when I must deploy over to Afghanistan.
But that would be totally different, we are talking about inhabitable areas, like suburban america, not arid lands full of terrorists, in a warzone you cant call the police if someone gets shot, because there are no law enforcements there, its a free for all, all soliders must be tested before entering a battlefield to ensure that they wont go bonkers and kill their allies, am i correct? The main topic here is USA's generally poor gun laws, everybody in the USA can easily get their hands on a gun, and that is a dangerous weapon that can be used for a lot of bad thing, but in a warzone, pretty much everybody has one, so if someone is killer with a gun on a battlefield, its technically not a murder, its more like a fight, that that is won by either side, but the loosing side had a chance, but if some raging redneck starts killing people in suburban america, nobody had a chance, and thats what a massmurder is, shooting multiple terrorists in war isnt massmurder, its fighting, and massmurder is entirely different from fighting. A raging redneck wouldnt be much of a threat in a warzone, even if he had a gun.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-24-2012, 11:59 PM
Grassy_Aggron's Avatar
Grassy_Aggron Offline
Nutjob Personified
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I...I don't know! WHERE DO I LIVE?!
Posts: 8,809
Send a message via AIM to Grassy_Aggron
Default Re: Guns in America

My stepfather has two guns, neither of them are rifles. One was stolen by his son and sold for drug money, but it was recovered - although now apparently the police lost the weapon.



Things like these happen. I do agree that the law should be tighter, the loophole should be fixed, and for the love of all that is righteous assault guns are banned. They're for hunting, not self defense. A pistol would be a better gun for that because of the close range, I think. And as Ty said, you don't need to blow their head off.

Plus most people don't really want to kill whoever it attacking them. Maybe in the heat of the moment but after that, the guilt...



Those poor children, though. And the families of those lost, like the teachers...Even that mental guy's family, I feel for them. (Maybe not the mother so much, not sure about the father, but hey the cousins and everything I can feel bad for).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-25-2012, 07:12 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Sure, gun-related deaths will drop if you put laws on guns. How about crime related deaths in general? Hate to say it dude, but just because you've wiped out one means of committing murder doesn't mean the person is suddenly going to become sweet and mellow and decide not to go on a homicidal rampage. They'll just find another way to do it. In any case, most deaths from gun violence are from gang-related incidents. I think it's more of a matter of keeping those under control. Again, it's more a matter of crime control, not gun control.
Most of them do use other methods, and are far more easily subdued because of that fact as well. But I digress; I think that there should be an assault weapons ban (because they really don't have much use even in self defense compared to say a normal pistol) and tighter regulations on guns so it becomes less likely to fall into the wrong hands. This isn't to "restrict" your 2nd amendment rights, of which you are so eager to pounce on, but rather to ensure that we do have at least some safety net in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
You're right, we don't condone public usage of tools of destruction. People don't go walking around with guns all the time. Again, I think a lot of the people against this are mostly in the mindset that people would go utterly nuts if everyone carried a gun like life is just some bad, Hollywood action movie free for all where you shot to kill and winner takes all. They also seem to think that school shootings of this magnitude happen on a daily or even hourly basis just because guns are allowed to be purchased. Incidents like this are definitely not common.
They have been happening something like once a month though. Since the Batman shooting there's been at least 5-6 more shootings between then and now. The problem with the "gun as defense" argument, though, is that Sandy Hook actually did have a trained gunman on scene with a gun as one of the adult victims, so it didn't work in this example.

Now as for gun incidents and accidents, that happens on a daily basis. Just the other day a child was shot and killed because his father misfired his gun. The father might be the most responsible adult in the world, but a momentary lapse of cognition is all it took to take, essentially, that very man's life away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Please, if you don't like America, then don't ever feel the need to stay here. There's plenty of other countries out there that will gladly take those "freedoms" off your back if you no longer want them. I love how a lot of people call America "dumb" and "stupid" and generally treat this country like it's a pile of crap, but boy, the rest of the world would sure miss us if we were suddenly gone. See World War II to understand what happens when we leave the rest of the world to its own vices. Seriously. Either love this country or get out.
America in the past also had no FOX news then and was not as big of a corportist slave as it is now. Second of all, you're missing the point of the debate in the first place. There is a serious issue and flaw in the system that needs to be addressed here, and brushing it all under the rug under the pretense of patriotism is not doing anybody a service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
In the meantime, there's plenty of people that rely on hunting rifles to protect their livestock. Not everyone lives in an urban or suburban area like you probably do. And not everyone becomes a homicidal freak upon purchasing a firearm. Yes, it's something you need to be mature and responsible with. And I agree, it is something that only a person of sane mind and knowledge should be allowed to have. Same thing with a car. And with fire. In the right hands, a gun can be used responsibly as a tool of defense. In the wrong hands, yes, it is a deadly weapon. But there are countless other everyday objects that could be used as weapons if used irresponsibly.

If someone was out there trying to burglarize my home while I was still inside or trying to rape my wife or murder my kids, I'd like to think I'd have something to defend myself and my family with rather than a liberal's philosophy and/or a weeping plea in hopes he'll change his mind. And don't get me started on police response times. Until the day the local police force has teleportation devices, they still won't be able to get to the scene of the crime instantly. And obviously, you're not going to call up the cops because a wild coyote is harassing your chicken coop. But it would look rather silly if you were forced to use a steak knife on said coyote because it was the only weapon you had on you.
Gun regulation does nothing to affect this. So why argue using this specific point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
But in all seriousness, if you don't like the gun laws in the US and think life's better in another country, by all means, go there. I accept the fact that most people who own guns know how to handle them and are of sane mind to not just use them on innocent, every day people. I just appreciate we have the freedom of choice when it comes to that, even if you don't.
Again, to criticize a flaw in the system doesn't mean anything outside of that. It is a duty of a citizen to criticize aspects of the country that they don't like and strive for a solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Yes, the 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms to defend ourselves from a corrupt government. And sure, we've had the luxury of not having to do that lately. Take a look around and you'll see plenty of other countries that haven't had it so lucky. But I'd like to think that if the absolute worst happened and our homeland military defense fell short, we wouldn't be completely and utterly helpless against whatever atrocities another invading country had in store for us. But if you feel more secure with that liberal philosophy at your side instead of a real means of defense, well, good luck to you and hope you never need it.
To be fair, the US has something akin to a giant moat. Infantry combat is almost automatically excluded as it would take stupidly long amount of time to send them in from either the Pacific or the Atlantic. Should there be a war against the US, airborne combat would be the norm. Ground-based weaponry like guns is much less likely going to be useful. The exception is if there is a civil war in the US, of course.

But why are you even afraid of said "other countries" to begin with? Who's gonna even bother to attack you? The only two countries that can attack you by land are Canada and Mexico. Seriously, neither of these two countries will ever pose a threat to the US.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:03 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Most of them do use other methods, and are far more easily subdued because of that fact as well. But I digress; I think that there should be an assault weapons ban (because they really don't have much use even in self defense compared to say a normal pistol) and tighter regulations on guns so it becomes less likely to fall into the wrong hands. This isn't to "restrict" your 2nd amendment rights, of which you are so eager to pounce on, but rather to ensure that we do have at least some safety net in place.
I agree, civilians really don't need automatics (guns that are rapid-fire like AK-47 rifles and Uzis). That's overkill, but in the meantime, it seems even black-market firearms like these still get in circulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
They have been happening something like once a month though. Since the Batman shooting there's been at least 5-6 more shootings between then and now. The problem with the "gun as defense" argument, though, is that Sandy Hook actually did have a trained gunman on scene with a gun as one of the adult victims, so it didn't work in this example.
School and public shootings tend to spike in trends. I really blame the media for that, as you'll get plenty of imitators who wish to become infamous as well by doing something destructive and murderous. Some people feel doing the right thing will never get the noticed, while doing something wicked and evil like in the case of the Batman shooting and Sandy Hook will get them all over the news. A similar incident occurred when an arsonist set a house on fire and killed two of the firemen that arrived. Again, his face and name got all over the news. We've got to stop giving these kinds of murderers attention and a taste of "dark glory" as I like to call it. It only encourages imitators to do it also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Now as for gun incidents and accidents, that happens on a daily basis. Just the other day a child was shot and killed because his father misfired his gun. The father might be the most responsible adult in the world, but a momentary lapse of cognition is all it took to take, essentially, that very man's life away.
The question to ask is what he was doing with the gun during the misfire. Why did he have the safety off, why was it loaded, did he acknowledge where the gun was pointing, and did he take precautions to avoid touching the trigger? And why was the kid in the same room as him? He should have been making these kinds of checks. When you use a powerful and potentially dangerous tool like a chainsaw, yes, you need to make the same kinds of checks and use common sense. I have a feeling this father was still thinking carelessly. If he was handling a gun, it's common sense that child shouldn't have been in the same room, and he should have been careful with the firearm in question. So yes, I blame the father in this situation, not the gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
America in the past also had no FOX news then and was not as big of a corportist slave as it is now. Second of all, you're missing the point of the debate in the first place. There is a serious issue and flaw in the system that needs to be addressed here, and brushing it all under the rug under the pretense of patriotism is not doing anybody a service.
In truth, I simply detested the way Steak presented his debate without structure and logical association paired with ignorance and reckless assumption. He was asking for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Gun regulation does nothing to affect this. So why argue using this specific point?
Once you start imposing regulations on one thing, it can potentially trickle down to the finer aspects. The other point was to draw upon the fact that not everyone uses guns to commit crimes and murder. And the fact that there are times when a gun can fulfill a role that other tools cannot in certain situations. And not all those roles are for nefarious purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Again, to criticize a flaw in the system doesn't mean anything outside of that. It is a duty of a citizen to criticize aspects of the country that they don't like and strive for a solution.
There's a difference between legitimately questioning national policy and regulatory action from calling America just plain "dumb." Steak did the later, paired with atrocious structure, grammar, and presentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
To be fair, the US has something akin to a giant moat. Infantry combat is almost automatically excluded as it would take stupidly long amount of time to send them in from either the Pacific or the Atlantic. Should there be a war against the US, airborne combat would be the norm. Ground-based weaponry like guns is much less likely going to be useful. The exception is if there is a civil war in the US, of course.
That depends on the tactics the invading country used. Air would probably be the most predominant front of assault, but I doubt it would be limited to only that. Sooner or later ground forces would have to be moved in to occupy areas. And as war has proven in the past, it can be brutal on the civilian population. God forbid something like that happen, but if it did, it's nice knowing American civilians would still have means to impose at least some resistance in the form of a final stand with weapons that would at least hold some combative value against whatever invading forces are trying to occupy American territory. Think for a moment how much harder it would be for an invading country to try and occupy Texas as opposed to southern California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
But why are you even afraid of said "other countries" to begin with? Who's gonna even bother to attack you? The only two countries that can attack you by land are Canada and Mexico. Seriously, neither of these two countries will ever pose a threat to the US.
Russia and China say hello. China has an army of over a million soldiers and is currently building up their army and military resources. Why they're doing that is a great question to ask, because I can't think of a good answer to that and still feel secure about it. As for Russia, their defense spending has increased as the US has been imposing cuts (source). Not to mention they've overtaken both the UK and France in terms of global arms spending (source). Now given, they don't spend nearly as much as the U.S. does, but I have a feeling that the U.S. may not be able to keep up this kind of military spending for long, especially with the debt rising. All it takes is one corrupt leader and/or a severe misunderstanding and you've got problems.

Again, let's hope it never gets to that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:22 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
I agree, civilians really don't need automatics (guns that are rapid-fire like AK-47 rifles and Uzis). That's overkill, but in the meantime, it seems even black-market firearms like these still get in circulation.
You state this as though it would present an uneven conflict between citizens and criminals, though that is statistically inaccurate when one looks at a country like Australia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
School and public shootings tend to spike in trends. I really blame the media for that, as you'll get plenty of imitators who wish to become infamous as well by doing something destructive and murderous. Some people feel doing the right thing will never get the noticed, while doing something wicked and evil like in the case of the Batman shooting and Sandy Hook will get them all over the news. A similar incident occurred when an arsonist set a house on fire and killed two of the firemen that arrived. Again, his face and name got all over the news. We've got to stop giving these kinds of murderers attention and a taste of "dark glory" as I like to call it. It only encourages imitators to do it also.
No, they do not spike in trends. Every year since the ban on assault rifles was lifted, shootings have doubled.

And why blame the media? News channels report murders in Europe and Oceania, why is it that homicide rates are notably smaller in those regions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
The question to ask is what he was doing with the gun during the misfire. Why did he have the safety off, why was it loaded, did he acknowledge where the gun was pointing, and did he take precautions to avoid touching the trigger? And why was the kid in the same room as him? He should have been making these kinds of checks. When you use a powerful and potentially dangerous tool like a chainsaw, yes, you need to make the same kinds of checks and use common sense. I have a feeling this father was still thinking carelessly. If he was handling a gun, it's common sense that child shouldn't have been in the same room, and he should have been careful with the firearm in question. So yes, I blame the father in this situation, not the gun.
You are assuming the average U.S citizen has any training with a firearm under duress, or how to even operate under a life-threatening situation. This is why the average citizen, in my opinion, does not even need a firearm. The majority of them do not even know how to operate one when they really need to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
In truth, I simply detested the way Steak presented his debate without structure and logical association paired with ignorance and reckless assumption. He was asking for that.
His argument, though tactless, was logically straightforward and raised some valid points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Once you start imposing regulations on one thing, it can potentially trickle down to the finer aspects. The other point was to draw upon the fact that not everyone uses guns to commit crimes and murder. And the fact that there are times when a gun can fulfill a role that other tools cannot in certain situations. And not all those roles are for nefarious purposes.
Firearms are weapons. There is only one purpose for a weapon. To kill. No matter the reason, in self-defense or not, that is a nefarious purpose. No one should have to die, and no one should have to defend themselves from that threat. Imposing stronger regulation on firearms would make the populace safer, happier, and more updated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
There's a difference between legitimately questioning national policy and regulatory action from calling America just plain "dumb." Steak did the later, paired with atrocious structure, grammar, and presentation.
The American people as a rule are quite uneducated concerning policy and government. However bluntly Steak put his argument is up for you to quibble with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
That depends on the tactics the invading country used. Air would probably be the most predominant front of assault, but I doubt it would be limited to only that. Sooner or later ground forces would have to be moved in to occupy areas. And as war has proven in the past, it can be brutal on the civilian population. God forbid something like that happen, but if it did, it's nice knowing American civilians would still have means to impose at least some resistance in the form of a final stand with weapons that would at least hold some combative value against whatever invading forces are trying to occupy American territory. Think for a moment how much harder it would be for an invading country to try and occupy Texas as opposed to southern California.
No nation that has the capabilities to overpower the U.S air force would even bother engaging armed civilians. Level the city, bring the people to their knees. Once the trained federal standing army falls, what makes you think civilians will be able to put up a fighting chance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Russia and China say hello. China has an army of over a million soldiers and is currently building up their army and military resources. Why they're doing that is a great question to ask, because I can't think of a good answer to that and still feel secure about it. As for Russia, their defense spending has increased as the US has been imposing cuts (source). Not to mention they've overtaken both the UK and France in terms of global arms spending (source). Now given, they don't spend nearly as much as the U.S. does, but I have a feeling that the U.S. may not be able to keep up this kind of military spending for long, especially with the debt rising. All it takes is one corrupt leader and/or a severe misunderstanding and you've got problems.
China is massing a military for the same reason the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. An effective insurance that other nations will think twice before attacking them. No matter the leader, however, China would not risk destroying the nation that provides most of its wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Again, let's hope it never gets to that.
It won't.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-26-2012, 10:40 PM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
You state this as though it would present an uneven conflict between citizens and criminals, though that is statistically inaccurate when one looks at a country like Australia.
In my opinion, it's overkill. You don't need an automatic unless you're going to be under heavy fire, which almost never happens outside of a warzone or military/police operation. Some may disagree, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
No, they do not spike in trends. Every year since the ban on assault rifles was lifted, shootings have doubled.

And why blame the media? News channels report murders in Europe and Oceania, why is it that homicide rates are notably smaller in those regions?
You get imitators. People get envious of one guy's infamy and want a piece for themselves.

Also, media is only one factor in terms of rates. But one cannot disagree that a media story could potentially inspire someone to attempt a similar activity. As far as homicide rates go, that's based on a wide variety of factors. Not just the availability of guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
You are assuming the average U.S citizen has any training with a firearm under duress, or how to even operate under a life-threatening situation. This is why the average citizen, in my opinion, does not even need a firearm. The majority of them do not even know how to operate one when they really need to.
You're also assuming gun owners don't know how to responsibly handle a weapon. Yes, it's rather foolish to own a gun and have no idea how it works, but not everyone is like that. I'm not denying there probably are people out there like that, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
His argument, though tactless, was logically straightforward and raised some valid points.
Not to go off topic, but there was virtually zero structure to his argument, his points were a flawed mix of slang and sarcasm, the amount of baseless assumptions he made to everything were overwhelming, and he made generalizations to the entire country.

He would have been better off posting something entirely non-related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
Firearms are weapons. There is only one purpose for a weapon. To kill. No matter the reason, in self-defense or not, that is a nefarious purpose. No one should have to die, and no one should have to defend themselves from that threat. Imposing stronger regulation on firearms would make the populace safer, happier, and more updated.
Wrong again. Firearms are used for sporting events as well, such as clay pigeon shooting, which harms no one and is even in the Olympic Games. Others merely use firearms for target practice with no intention of using them against an actual living target. Meanwhile, there are also hunters that rely on firearms and also keep animal populations under control while using their meat and skins.

Also, imposing stronger regulations on firearms would make SOME of the populace safer and happier, while another portion would be frustrated by it. Don't assume everyone would jump in joy for more regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
The American people as a rule are quite uneducated concerning policy and government. However bluntly Steak put his argument is up for you to quibble with.
Sounds to me like you're making the same assumptions and generalizations as he is. Don't do that.

If anyone is uneducated by policy and government, it's likely because the system is over-complicated and fails at efficacy. Not to mention it fails at trying to simplify and communicate its own statements in a format that the common American civilian can understand. That too, needs to be changed, but that's a whole other discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
No nation that has the capabilities to overpower the U.S air force would even bother engaging armed civilians. Level the city, bring the people to their knees. Once the trained federal standing army falls, what makes you think civilians will be able to put up a fighting chance?
Visit Texas and ask them that question. Or better yet, ask yourself how America achieved independence in the first place. Personally, I'd rather have a fighting chance than just be a sitting duck, even if the chances of that are unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
China is massing a military for the same reason the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. An effective insurance that other nations will think twice before attacking them. No matter the leader, however, China would not risk destroying the nation that provides most of its wealth.
Not unless China feels at some point they have enough wealth to the point where they don't need to rely on America anymore or America no longer provides them with sufficient wealth that outweighs the benefit of an attempt to seize direct control of the country's resources. Or America defaults on the debt it owes, which is a possible scenario. Any number of things could happen that would spark a cause for invasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
It won't.
They said the same thing about the Titanic running the risk of sinking. Never assume anything.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com