|
|
|
|
#31
12-23-2012
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#32
12-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
12-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually the ropes and gas killed many overtime, and were not immediate deaths. They were allowed to move their victims to where they needed to be, oftened HELPED by the law and killed however they wish.
In a smaller group with the law against you, guns are the more effective tactic to kill large amount of people in a very short time. Assuming you have plenty of time and plenty of ammo in a largely crowded area, you could kill hundreds before stopped.
|
|
#35
12-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A lot of people think that guns are just for killing, but my father also uses them for hunting, which is productive since we eat everything he shoots. They do not have to be just for murdering the innocent. Last edited by kudos; 12-24-2012 at 05:44 PM.
|
|
#36
12-24-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
The fact remains that the vast majority of gun owners are enthusiasts, sportsmen and collectors, who have no evil intentions whatsoever. Can you honestly justify it's worth wasting yet more time and money causing hassle to the 99.9999% who wish to own guns legally, when that time and money could be spent in other places with more effect?
IN MORE RECENT NEWS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925 "Firefighters shot and killed after being lured to an arson that was started by the shooter" Clearly a case of premeditated attack. He wanted to cause harm no matter what. Gun laws would make little to no difference to his plans.
|
|
#37
12-25-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well stricter gun laws might have stopped him from having a gun and then he wouldn't have been able to shoot them, he could have gone charging at them with a knife or something but I don't think that would have been as effective. I don't think guns (at least not all of them) should be outright banned but I think having a little regulation or a limit to the amount of guns someone can own isn't something to be afraid of. The problem isn't the people who are responsible and I don't see how stricter laws would affect them, especially if they're a part of a gun group where people are responsible and know what they're doing with their guns. The problem is is that atm it seems like anyone can get guns and no matter how you feel about guns that's not a good thing. I don't want to cause trouble to good people but I don't think it's going to affect them. At least make people go through training before getting a gun, trying to learn what the guns are gonna be used for and maybe even suggest a local club to join so they can be around responsible like minded people and maybe even make friends. To say there should be no law changes and instead blame an already vulnerable group of people is a dangerous way to go. If you look back at history discrimination and hate is actually usually the cause of mass killings. If you want to talk about freedom what about their freedom? A little laws aroun the weapon couldn't hurt ._. especially with so many gun accidents that lead to a lot more deaths. Over here some people are still iffy about cops having guns 'cause a criminal could take it from them'. That I think is going too far.
|
|
#39
12-25-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If there gun for any reason is taken and used for man slaughter in most cases this would constitute as assisted manslaughter? Of course there would be sub sections to note exclusions but this would in most cases knuckle down on some owners who carelessly leave their gun around or not properly locked up? I remember the elementary student who went to school with a gun. Thankfully nothing happened but just her having the weapon shows the carelessness of the owner. Now not all owners are careless. But I do see even on my facebook feeds gun owners selling their guns for small change to make a quick buck. Granted more laws will need to be made but I think this takes care of one part for now.
|
|
#40
12-25-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
PS I mostly agree with Sailor, people are the pro-side seem to think regulation of guns is the same as an outright ban, but notice in the UK, many people still have guns for hunting and other things, what most pro-regulators want is for guns to be given out responsibility and no longer given as free gifts with bank accounts. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-25-2012 at 06:34 PM.
|
|
#43
12-27-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
With the right license, states and money, you can get your hands on Grenades, Fully automatic weapons of any kind AND Anti-tank missiles. As well as 40mm anti-aircraft cannons, miniguns and a whole host of other things. Feel free to delve into FPS russia, for more information.
|
|
#44
12-27-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government. To avoid the inevitable semantical breakdown, let’s just agree that some classes of weapons are “Strictly and Prohibitively Controlled”. Last edited by Bantler; 12-27-2012 at 06:33 PM.
|
|
#45
12-27-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
FPSrussia needs shittons of legal support and licenses and stuff to make some of his videos. But it's still possible.
|
|
#48
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
assume 1 farmer per farm Total of 14 million guns allowed. That's ~5.2% of the current estimated total.
|
|
#50
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#52
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#53
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK, first note that legislation and criminalisation are very different. (I figured for fairness of debate, I should add both.)
Now some points of rebuttal. Everything I read here was what I expected to read as it is the same self-fulfilling arguments I always hear which in my mind are basically just proxies as people know the true argument, I like guns does not really hold much weight. 1=It is too hard=My god is this just pathetic. Its almost impossible cure many forms of cancer as well, should we also give up on that? So, yes, first point, just because something is hard does not mean it is wrong and pansy arguments like this are why we have climate change, poverty and a host of other problems. Second point, it is not actually hard, it just has to be administrated carefully as was seen in Japan, the UK, Germany and a host of other countries which created stronger gun legislation. 2=Protect me gun=Yes because everyone knows the only way to stop a mad-man is to send in another mad man, or put in a less sarcastic way if we have a tense, dangerous situation, full of nervous people, then of course we have want these scared, generally untrained citizens armed to the teeth, that will solve everything and I can see no problems coming from this what so ever...OK, so I was still really sarcastic. However, seriously the idea that guns make society safer is just wrong. Grim made an interesting point about society being built on trust, but if the only way you can trust others is if know you can shoot him the second he attacks you, that is not trust, that is acceptance that society has collapsed, and a form of paranoia at best. Now, as my knowledge of the USA’s gun cases is bias I will use examples from the UK for this point. A few weeks ago there were calls in the Media for the British police to be armed. Now, luckily there was little public support for this and so it quickly disappeared into the abyss of failed lobbying campaigns that is the archives of newspaper companies. Why do I bring this up you ask? Well, simple really, it brings up the question, why was there so little public support for the police to have guns as a standard, when they are a specially trained force, which is there to protect and uphold the peace. In fact, British police are so well trained that many are hired by other countries because they are considered better trained and experienced than their own internally trained officers. So, why then is this force not to be trusted? I think the answer is that the British still remember events like Jean Charles de Menezes which led to the end of “Operation Kratos”, one of the worst attacks on civil liberties by the police state loving Labour party to date. That is impressive considering their stance on civil liberties. Now, you may suggest this was a one off and the police have learnt a lot since then, which I would guess to some extent is probably true. However, cases like Raoul Moat show even when you have only specially trained units with access to guns at times of crisis it is still a real issue. However, I think the case of the 80 year old blind man who got shot (luckily with a stun gun) by an officer who mistook his cane for a samurai sword is probably the best evidence here. Who knows what would have happened if that officer had been holding a real gun instead of a stun gun. So in short, if trained officer being armed for protection is a bad idea then arming, panicky citizens is just mental. Another problem is what is called the inflation theory, if citizens are armed with handguns, the police get automatic handguns, so the citizens get bigger guns and so and so. Now this problematic for two reasons. First, this means that citizens arming themselves against the state only makes the state more totalitarian and paranoia. Second, it causes a sense of paranoia and mistrust between the state and citizen. 3=If you take away their guns, then they will just club each other=Now, I am not sure whether this argument is laughable or repugnant to me. I find it laughable because…well, it is plain stupid, but I also find it repugnant because only a truly ‘cynical’ mind could come up with something so twisted and consider it logical. This is for a range of reasons: A=Guns are very effective killing machines; I have used a gun and was shocked at how easy it was. Unless you are a stormtrooper from starwars or a goon from James Bond, the chances are you can use a gun in the manner it was intended. This means that guns need to be considered in their own right and not cynically compared against other items which can be used for murder. B=We can legislate for those other items, their being legal/illegal should have no bearing on the case of guns. C=Many other ‘items’ ether are illegal or are household items which were invented for reasons other than murder, like knives which only a cynical mind would think is a weapon. I cannot speak for others here, but when I see a knife, I do not think ‘stabby stabby’, I think I better be careful as a cut the carrots. 4=Its NOT FAIR…..ITS NOT FAIR! I need to shoot small animals to prove how MANILY I AM!=Well, my political side thinks screw it, if it is a choice between your right to shoot things and another’s right to life, I choose life. However, I realise that is not a persuasive argument and I am also aware that the UK’s restrictive handgun laws have actually all but killed pistol target shooting in the UK. So what is my point here? Well, the moral debate over the hunting of animals aside, this is looking at the right to own and keep guns, not shoot them, people here seem to think that it is one of two extremes. Ether, I am allowed full access to guns or no guns at all. However, here are my thoughts, you do not need to own a gun to shoot it, nor do you need to keep it on your property to shoot it. I am happy for people to put forward middle ground suggestions. One gentleman I once met had the novel idea of having specially designed ranges where you can hunt or target shoot with almost any gun you wish, run by trained professionals and the only restriction on your rights is that you cannot take the guns outside the zone. I am not saying this is a perfect idea or anything, but it shows that if we are creative we can tackle this issue in a manner which protects society and still allows people to use guns in the way they claim to wish to. 5=Guns, well they are all the same, right?=This is a point which erks me, but both sides of the debate are guilty of this; while 90% of killshot’s point was rather disgustingly fatalistic, I have to say he brought up a fair point about the differences between sub-machine guns and rifles. This a very important point, there are thousands of different types of guns and to just treating them all as the same in a blanket fashion is impractical and foolish. IE The point that clay pigeon shooting and hunting will be unfairly effected by gun legislation is redundant when the legislation is for pistols or sub-machine guns. So we need to ensure legislation takes each type of gun into account and legislates or criminalises it based on its own merits. 6=Only those nutters are killers=Well this point about mental health needs to be dealt with on 3 grounds: i=Pro legislators want guns to be regulated, which means this is the one case where we can actually say if you can prove that you will be a responsible owner, keeper and user of guns then you will have no problems. ii=To just claim that those with mental health issues are to blame for gun crime really over simplifies the problems of mental health issues and gun crime. This is because: A=Though the big cases are sometimes caused by those who appear to have some form of health problem, most cases of gun crime appear to be related to gang crime and petty crime, which means unless you want to go down the very erroneous route of defining all criminals as mentally unwell, this proves this issue is far bigger and more complex than just saying ‘they are mentally unwell’. This goes to the heart of the cultural and social break down theory and it at the core of the lack of cohesion in the USA’s social structure which can be blamed on the USA simply not giving people any reason to be invested in the success of society, but that is another debate for another day. The simple fact is, this is a complex issue and to blame mental illness on gun crime is a proxy/wicker man argument at best. B=Not everyone who is mentally unwell and has a gun will kill people, not everyone who is ‘sane’ is incapable of using a gun for killing. (Note, I used the term killing, not murder.) iii=I am quite sure that almost all pro-legislators of guns are also pro-aid for those with mental health issues. 7=Legal owners do not kill=This is maybe a fair point, but it is actually impossible to tell in the USA as in many USA states you do not even need a licence for most guns. In the UK most gun related crime is linked back to the owners of illegal firearms simply due to the fact most guns in the UK are banned, however ironically most of our mass killings link back to legal owners. Another problem is that we need to see how many illegal owners of guns are involved in gun which again the statistics are woolly on at best. However what is known is that 2 million handguns were reported stolen by legal owners in 1995. That is 2 million guns in the hands of criminals. This shows that gun owners have more of a responsibility than just not using guns for crimes personally, they have to ensure that ‘no one uses their guns for crimes.’ There is another statistic somewhere which shows that something like 70% of guns seized in investigations relating to gun crime could traced back to legal owners. IE Stolen (15%), bought in proxy, borrowed, legal owner is involved…etc. However, I cannot find this statistic right now so that one I will hold up my hands for. Now, what all these statistics show us is that the easy access to guns is why the USA has such a gun problem. Even if legal owners are not causing gun crime personally (generally unknown,) the irresponsible keeping/selling of guns makes it all too easy for guns to fall into the ‘wrong hands’ in the USA. Gun owners need to take more responsibility here than just saying it is not their fault, they need to ensure their guns are regulated, safely stored and sold responsibly. As they are failing to do this and due to the dangerous nature of guns it is clear the law has to step in now to deal with this issue. So there you have it, what I see as a strong and fair case for the legislation and regulation of guns. This is not some ‘bash’ blanket ban call, but a request for guns to looked at in their entirety and regulated appropriately depending on the danger they pose to society and the usages people have for them. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-28-2012 at 10:54 AM.
|
|
#54
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Why do you bring cancer into this discussion? Are you saying guns are as bad as cancer? This is a terrible comparison. What you are suggesting just isn't practical for a country like the United States. All you would be doing is creating a black market. The guns are already here. All tighter regulation is going to do is make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops. Sounds like money that could be better spent elsewhere.
|
|
#55
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Like all gun lovers you are thinking too short term and this is not a short term issue, it takes years of slow and careful regulation.
You have crack downs on areas where known gun running is taking place. You have hand in days, believe me, you ask gun owners to give in their guns, many will. Especially if this is part of a controlled, social extraction of guns from society. You ensure that shops selling guns do their paperwork properly and have a clear and fair set of regulations for the sales of guns, this is through both 'positive' and 'negative' enforcement. You ensure that both the non-owners and owners of guns act more responsibility and have real education about guns and the harm mishandling of them can cause. Heck, if you just stop banks giving out guns as a gift for opening an account and get rid of laws which make it illegal for every house to not have at least 1 gun; that would be a start. You say it is impossible, but then why has just about every other developed country in the world besides the USA managed to achieve this then? Why is there an almost direct correlation between gun laws and gun crime. Is the US that broken, corrupt and just plain wrong? Canada, like the USA has high gun ownership, yet only a year after firearms licensing was introduced homicide via guns declined, within 6 years it had dropped from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000. This shows that careful regulation can work even in pro-gun country. Note, due to its liberal laws it still has really high morality rates. To my mind, like with most of the USA's problems, this is only left untackled because the US makes a lot of money out of the sale of guns and until the USA decides that a person life is worth more than the dollar it will remain this way. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-28-2012 at 06:31 PM.
|
|
#56
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Come to my state for a while. This is possibly the most optimistic thing I've ever heard. One of the reasons I'm saying this is impossible is because many Americans, myself included, don't even believe this is a goal worth accomplishing. Give up a major freedom just because a few people can't handle it? Nope. I understand that less guns will mean fewer tragedies. But that's a chance the US has decided its willing to take. I don't believe that holding up a picture of a dead kid gives anyone the right to take away the liberties of others. Its a damn shame those kids died but you need to look at the real issues here and stop putting the blame on tools.
|
|
#57
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
America, the land of illiberalism, war, social poverty and one of the most over regulated countries in the world decides that guns are the issue is it going to take a liberal stance on?
I am not sure whether I should laugh or cry, all I can say is that I am very sorry to hear that and I am glad I did not grow in a country which socialised me to think in such a depraved manner. Although I never said anything about 'kids', and I was on about gun crime as a whole, I think the sad almost demeaning way you articulated yourself shows how doomed to repeat history your country is. I mean what a tragic way to put it, it is a...shame...it is not terrible or horrible or even tragic, just a 'shame', the sort of word you use when your cat dies maybe, that is what the death of these people has become, a mere 'shame'. How shameful it is to look at this horrid event in that way. Then you use the word 'kids', a term created to show the immaturity of the young, not an insulting term maybe, but certainly not a respectful term...they in your mind are not people, not even children, they are...just kids...Who knows? Maybe it is easier to look at them as just kids and not as fully realised people. Not as lives which had barely begun. Not as wasted potential, not as future doctors, nurses, maybe even police officers. Still, though they are gone, you can rest easy knowing you have a piece of wood and metal sitting in your home, cold and dark as it maybe, unable to achieve anything but death, its touch neither warm nor fair, but still, it is your right that you can bear this thing, that is something, right? That has to worth it, surely? Last edited by Fat1Fared; 12-28-2012 at 06:35 PM.
|
|
#58
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#60
12-28-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Will banning guns stop tragedies like this? probably not
Will it make them less likely? possibly has there ever been a careful, coordinated and unbiased review of all.possible options, their pros, cons, and possible effects in the future? no and until there is, we won't know what may or may not happen. we won't know what the best course of action to take is, and we can't truly justify it. stop blaming everyone and everything, and start finding real solutions.
|
 |
|
|
