firearm regulation != firearm revocation
right to bear arms is a hilariously awful concept in modern day. There should at least be some licensing process to be able to own them in the first place, you have to take a class and have a license to be able to hunt but not to actually own a gun which makes no sense. Look at Sweden or Japan or any other country with actual regulations on gun ownership, because a ban on assault rifles can hardly be considered "strict" regulation. The fact that you can break into any random house and be able to find a firearm is part of the problem in itself.
firearm regulation != firearm revocation
right to bear arms is a hilariously awful concept in modern day. There should at least be some licensing process to be able to own them in the first place, you have to take a class and have a license to be able to hunt but not to actually own a gun which makes no sense. Look at Sweden or Japan or any other country with actual regulations on gun ownership, because a ban on [i]assault rifles[/i] can hardly be considered "strict" regulation. The fact that you can break into any random house and be able to find a firearm is part of the problem in itself.
brownymasterEvery time a massacre happens
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are pretty different.
[quote=brownymaster][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA]Every time a massacre happens[/url]
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.[/quote]
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are [i]pretty[/i] different.
The reason owning weapons is illegal in China is the reason it is legal here. The Chinese government didn't implement gun control laws because it cares about the well being of it's citizens, but because people are easier to oppress and abuse when they lack the means to strike back.
I know its an obvious message, but I think people take for granted that this country would not exist if not for firearms, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Some people say that the founding fathers could not have imagined a future in which gun ownership isn't necessary, but why do those same people find it so impossible to imagine a future in which it is? If you want to murder a man you can use a knife. If you want to resist invaders or a corrupt government you need guns (and more).
I think the thing that bothers me most about this debate is that most of the gun control advocates are forced to admit that their "solutions" would not have prevented this man from carrying out an attack (I guess the others live in some fantasy world where men who are unhinged and determined enough to shoot their own mothers in the face, slaughter elementary school children and their teachers and then kill themselves will be deterred by a little red tape) and yet, despite these admissions they seem unwilling to even address the actual cause of these massacres. I think its partly because having a knee jerk "BAN ________" reaction is easier than examining exactly how men can be driven to the point where they are capable of committing such atrocities.
The examples from China are important because they show that such incidents are not unique to our "gun obsessed culture" and that the lack of available firearms does not prevent such incidents. In fact, China has had a rash of these attacks, like this one http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14014789-ax-wielding-man-kills-3-kids-wounds-13-in-china?lite . Someone should tell the parents of those children they were lucky the guy used an axe and not a gun.
The sad thing is that the article I linked says that the incidents in China have inspired a movement for mental health reform. Perhaps, it is because they don't have debates over guns, music and violent video games clouding the issue.
In America and Europe the men who perpetrate these attacks use guns, in China they use knives and axes, but the one thing they all have in common is mental illness.
The reason owning weapons is illegal in China is the reason it is legal here. The Chinese government didn't implement gun control laws because it cares about the well being of it's citizens, but because people are easier to oppress and abuse when they lack the means to strike back.
I know its an obvious message, but I think people take for granted that this country would not exist if not for firearms, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Some people say that the founding fathers could not have imagined a future in which gun ownership isn't necessary, but why do those same people find it so impossible to imagine a future in which it is? If you want to murder a man you can use a knife. If you want to resist invaders or a corrupt government you need guns (and more).
I think the thing that bothers me most about this debate is that most of the gun control advocates are forced to admit that their "solutions" would not have prevented this man from carrying out an attack (I guess the others live in some fantasy world where men who are unhinged and determined enough to shoot their own mothers in the face, slaughter elementary school children and their teachers and then kill themselves will be deterred by a little red tape) and yet, despite these admissions they seem unwilling to even address the actual cause of these massacres. I think its partly because having a knee jerk "BAN ________" reaction is easier than examining exactly how men can be driven to the point where they are capable of committing such atrocities.
The examples from China are important because they show that such incidents are not unique to our "gun obsessed culture" and that the lack of available firearms does not prevent such incidents. In fact, China has had a rash of these attacks, like this one http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14014789-ax-wielding-man-kills-3-kids-wounds-13-in-china?lite . Someone should tell the parents of those children they were lucky the guy used an axe and not a gun.
The sad thing is that the article I linked says that the incidents in China have inspired a movement for mental health reform. Perhaps, it is because they don't have debates over guns, music and violent video games clouding the issue.
In America and Europe the men who perpetrate these attacks use guns, in China they use knives and axes, but the one thing they all have in common is mental illness.
mass effects facebook page
http://i.imgur.com/Id2Wp.jpg
WhatisausernameYour post is a textbook example of the biased towards "fairness" mentality. In a week, no one will remember this tragedy; if any, this is the only time we'll get a chance to have a serious conversation about the direction gun ownership laws in this country will take. One can discuss and debate the issues all they'd like without getting anything done (as is often the case) and "agreeing to disagree".
Did you not actually read the rest of my post?
Immediately after what you quoted, I said:
mustardoverlordhowever, whether or not it's logical to begin gun control conversations only after tragic events like this (it's not), I think it's still good to have those conversations in the first place.
if anything, gun control is more relevant to issues of like gang violence or inner city homicides, but no one ever wants to talk about that. incidents like this, when a bunch of little kids get killed at once, evoke such a huge emotional response that it makes sense to have the debate now, even though tbh stuff like this is one of the most unavoidable aspects of gun violence.
The only appeal to fairness I was making is ON AN ISSUE TO ISSUE BASIS. There are bound to be shooting incidents where all the gun control in the world wouldn't have helped, but we should avoid that tainting the debate overall. There are obviously situations where gun control would be helpful OVERALL. I said the exact same thing you did, that this is the time to have the debate when everyone is still emotional. Please actually read my posts.
Whatisausernamemustardoverlordif anything though, aside from the possibility of more gun control -> less access to weapons -> no shooting, there's the more realistic possibility of more gun control -> less gun-obsessed culture over time -> less seeking out of firearms -> less gun violence
It's very tempting to pin the blame on abstract issues such as "gun-obsessed culture" to console ourselves with inaction. The simple fact is that the ease of procuring guns (and ammo), the complete lack of weapons training, no enforcement of gun-ownership responsibility and the sheer number of guns out there are explanation enough.
1) I said that the scenario for change you were describing was still possible. I just added another to solidify the argument for gun control further.
2.) I'm not just blaming it on "gun culture" and saying it's unfixable. I'm saying said culture exists BECAUSE OF THE READILY AVAILABLE NATURE OF GUNS, and that it would be reduced if gun control were in place.
[quote=Whatisausername]
Your post is a textbook example of the biased towards "fairness" mentality. In a week, no one will remember this tragedy; if any, this is the only time we'll get a chance to have a serious conversation about the direction gun ownership laws in this country will take. One can discuss and debate the issues all they'd like without getting anything done (as is often the case) and "agreeing to disagree".
[/quote]
Did you not actually read the rest of my post?
Immediately after what you quoted, I said:
[quote=mustardoverlord]
however, whether or not it's logical to begin gun control conversations only after tragic events like this (it's not), I think it's still good to have those conversations in the first place.
if anything, gun control is more relevant to issues of like gang violence or inner city homicides, but no one ever wants to talk about that. incidents like this, when a bunch of little kids get killed at once, evoke such a huge emotional response that it makes sense to have the debate now, even though tbh stuff like this is one of the most unavoidable aspects of gun violence.
[/quote]
The only appeal to fairness I was making is ON AN ISSUE TO ISSUE BASIS. There are bound to be shooting incidents where all the gun control in the world wouldn't have helped, but we should avoid that tainting the debate overall. There are obviously situations where gun control would be helpful OVERALL. I said the exact same thing you did, that this is the time to have the debate when everyone is still emotional. Please actually read my posts.
[quote=Whatisausername]
[quote=mustardoverlord]
if anything though, aside from the possibility of more gun control -> less access to weapons -> no shooting, there's the more realistic possibility of more gun control -> less gun-obsessed culture over time -> less seeking out of firearms -> less gun violence[/quote]
It's very tempting to pin the blame on abstract issues such as "gun-obsessed culture" to console ourselves with inaction. The simple fact is that the ease of procuring guns (and ammo), the complete lack of weapons training, no enforcement of gun-ownership responsibility and the sheer number of guns out there are explanation enough.[/quote]
1) I said that the scenario for change you were describing was still possible. I just added another to solidify the argument for gun control further.
2.) I'm not just blaming it on "gun culture" and saying it's unfixable. I'm saying said culture exists BECAUSE OF THE READILY AVAILABLE NATURE OF GUNS, and that it would be reduced if gun control were in place.
ClandestinePzI know its an obvious message, but I think people take for granted that this country would not exist if not for firearms, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Some people say that the founding fathers could not have imagined a future in which gun ownership isn't necessary, but why do those same people find it so impossible to imagine a future in which it is? If you want to murder a man you can use a knife. If you want to resist invaders or a corrupt government you need guns (and more).
Yes, but in effect you are deifying our founding fathers/supporting the philosophy of constitutional originalism by applying centuries-old reasoning today, two things that THE FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES DID NOT SUPPORT.
ClandestinePzI think the thing that bothers me most about this debate is that most of the gun control advocates are forced to admit that their "solutions" would not have prevented this man from carrying out an attack (I guess the others live in some fantasy world where men who are unhinged and determined enough to shoot their own mothers in the face, slaughter elementary school children and their teachers and then kill themselves will be deterred by a little red tape) and yet, despite these admissions they seem unwilling to even address the actual cause of these massacres. I think its partly because having a knee jerk "BAN ________" reaction is easier than examining exactly how men can be driven to the point where they are capable of committing such atrocities.
As I said, even if gun control would not affect incidents such as this (which is highly debatable because you're talking about instantly applying gun control laws today rather than having them in place for a long time, thus gradually reducing the connected culture), this still isn't the only area in which it's relevant. It's just that when cute smiling white middle class children in a suburb are senselessly murdered and there's a clear villain (the mentally ill person who did it), it receives far more coverage than when an inner city black teenager is senselessly murdered in Baltimore and it's the fault of the failing American economic system and the War on Drugs. If this is the only time we can actually have an open discourse of gun control, then so be it.
ClandestinePzThe examples from China are important because they show that such incidents are not unique to our "gun obsessed culture" and that the lack of available firearms does not prevent such incidents. In fact, China has had a rash of these attacks, like this one http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14014789-ax-wielding-man-kills-3-kids-wounds-13-in-china?lite . Someone should tell the parents of those children they were lucky the guy used an axe and not a gun.
The sad thing is that the article I linked says that the incidents in China have inspired a movement for mental health reform. Perhaps, it is because they don't have debates over guns, music and violent video games clouding the issue.
In America and Europe the men who perpetrate these attacks use guns, in China they use knives and axes, but the one thing they all have in common is mental illness.
Yes, but China and European countries don't have 11,500 gun homicides a year, now do they?
The most extreme proponents of these spree killings are those that hatch out a sick plan for a long time, and work hard to procure firearms. That's why they can exist anywhere (even in countries like Norway with strict laws and a giant welfare state). That doesn't mean that gun control is futile in those other countries.
If you think preserving an ideal from the colonial era (EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDING FATHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO PRESERVE IDEALS FROM THE COLONIAL ERA) is a good trade-off for those homicides, that's on you.
[quote=ClandestinePz]
I know its an obvious message, but I think people take for granted that this country would not exist if not for firearms, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Some people say that the founding fathers could not have imagined a future in which gun ownership isn't necessary, but why do those same people find it so impossible to imagine a future in which it is? If you want to murder a man you can use a knife. If you want to resist invaders or a corrupt government you need guns (and more).
[/quote]
Yes, but in effect you are deifying our founding fathers/supporting the philosophy of constitutional originalism by applying centuries-old reasoning today, two things that THE FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES DID NOT SUPPORT.
[quote=ClandestinePz]
I think the thing that bothers me most about this debate is that most of the gun control advocates are forced to admit that their "solutions" would not have prevented this man from carrying out an attack (I guess the others live in some fantasy world where men who are unhinged and determined enough to shoot their own mothers in the face, slaughter elementary school children and their teachers and then kill themselves will be deterred by a little red tape) and yet, despite these admissions they seem unwilling to even address the actual cause of these massacres. I think its partly because having a knee jerk "BAN ________" reaction is easier than examining exactly how men can be driven to the point where they are capable of committing such atrocities.
[/quote]
As I said, even if gun control would not affect incidents such as this (which is highly debatable because you're talking about instantly applying gun control laws today rather than having them in place for a long time, thus gradually reducing the connected culture), this still isn't the only area in which it's relevant. It's just that when cute smiling white middle class children in a suburb are senselessly murdered and there's a clear villain (the mentally ill person who did it), it receives far more coverage than when an inner city black teenager is senselessly murdered in Baltimore and it's the fault of the failing American economic system and the War on Drugs. If this is the only time we can actually have an open discourse of gun control, then so be it.
[quote=ClandestinePz]
The examples from China are important because they show that such incidents are not unique to our "gun obsessed culture" and that the lack of available firearms does not prevent such incidents. In fact, China has had a rash of these attacks, like this one http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14014789-ax-wielding-man-kills-3-kids-wounds-13-in-china?lite . Someone should tell the parents of those children they were lucky the guy used an axe and not a gun.
The sad thing is that the article I linked says that the incidents in China have inspired a movement for mental health reform. Perhaps, it is because they don't have debates over guns, music and violent video games clouding the issue.
In America and Europe the men who perpetrate these attacks use guns, in China they use knives and axes, but the one thing they all have in common is mental illness.[/quote]
Yes, but China and European countries don't have 11,500 gun homicides a year, now do they?
The most extreme proponents of these spree killings are those that hatch out a sick plan for a long time, and work hard to procure firearms. That's why they can exist anywhere (even in countries like Norway with strict laws and a giant welfare state). That doesn't mean that gun control is futile in those other countries.
If you think preserving an ideal from the colonial era (EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDING FATHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO PRESERVE IDEALS FROM THE COLONIAL ERA) is a good trade-off for those homicides, that's on you.
clckwrkbrownymasterEvery time a massacre happens
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are pretty different.
Your post just reminded me of this
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/01/15600220-wyoming-killings-man-stabbed-dads-girlfriend-then-shot-arrow-at-dad-in-class-cops-say?lite
perhaps the bow and arrow isn't the most efficient weapon, but I think we have to worry about more than keeping the body count low.
[quote=clckwrk][quote=brownymaster][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA]Every time a massacre happens[/url]
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.[/quote]
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are [i]pretty[/i] different.[/quote]
Your post just reminded me of this
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/01/15600220-wyoming-killings-man-stabbed-dads-girlfriend-then-shot-arrow-at-dad-in-class-cops-say?lite
perhaps the bow and arrow isn't the most efficient weapon, but I think we have to worry about more than keeping the body count low.
defiance"he stole the guns"
OMG WE NEED TOUGHER GUN CONTROL LAWS
but
if nobody in america had any guns
it would have been a fair bit harder to steal them
[quote=defiance]"he stole the guns"
OMG WE NEED TOUGHER GUN CONTROL LAWS[/quote]
but
if nobody in america had any guns
it would have been a fair bit harder to steal them
ClandestinePzpoorly made arguments
1. See my previous post about the conditions of society when the second amendment was ratified. The chances of a man killing 30 people with a front loading musket in under an hour are pretty slim, and the idea that it could be done faster would have been foreign at the time. In the future when death rays are readily accessible to every person in America, I hope that our second amendment rights are protected so that everyone who ever gets angry can kill everyone around them because that's how washington would have done it.
2. Chinese people not owning guns can just as easily be tied to the fact that they spent an entire generation trying to build a perfect communist society. Saying it's solely for the purpose of oppressing its people might help Kissinger get off, but there is an entire history and ideology that you seem to be ignoring.
3. It's already been observed and noted that it's a lot harder to kill one person (let alone droves of them) with a knife. If you'll look back to the stats that whatisausername posted, the lion's share of homicides are committed without pre-meditation and with use of a gun. Yes if you really want to kill someone you can do it with an icicle, or a bobby pin, or your bare fucking hands, but that doesn't mean that just because it's possible means you should be able to down 20 people in that same time frame on a whim.
4. I'm not even going to address the "you're just on a knee-jerk reaction" bit with any sort of dignity. I said the exact same thing on natf2 when Holmes shot up a theater, and I voted for a representative that believes that banning civilians from owning 900 m/s muzzle velocity fully automatic assault rifles doesn't actually equate to meaningful gun control.
5. Your refutation of the chinese cases is on such shaky logic that I wonder if you even read that to yourself. It's the exact same reasoning that leads people to say IF THEY WANT A GUN THEY'LL GET A GUN WHOOPS WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING which then leads to preserving a status quo which involves orders of magnitudes more gun violence per year than other civilized nations. Arguing over whether or not gun control would have prevented this is almost as irrelevant as well because people will always swear by the GET ONE IF YOU WANT IT HARD ENOUGH logic. There's no way to tell if actual gun control laws could have prevented this, but what I said previously and what mustard said are both true. The prevalence and ease of access to deadly firearms is symptomatic of a nation that refuses to tackle the issue whatsoever (probably due to widespread allegiance to outdated ideals/logic of futility) and it is clear that we need to stop fetishizing weaponry as a society to see real change.
[quote=ClandestinePz]poorly made arguments[/quote]
1. See my previous post about the conditions of society when the second amendment was ratified. The chances of a man killing 30 people with a front loading musket in under an hour are pretty slim, and the idea that it could be done faster would have been foreign at the time. In the future when death rays are readily accessible to every person in America, I hope that our second amendment rights are protected so that everyone who ever gets angry can kill everyone around them because [b]that's how washington would have done it.[/b]
2. Chinese people not owning guns can just as easily be tied to the fact that they spent an entire generation trying to build a perfect communist society. Saying it's solely for the purpose of oppressing its people might help Kissinger get off, but there is an entire history and ideology that you seem to be ignoring.
3. It's already been observed and noted that it's a lot harder to kill one person (let alone droves of them) with a knife. If you'll look back to the stats that whatisausername posted, the lion's share of homicides are committed without pre-meditation and with use of a gun. Yes if you really want to kill someone you can do it with an icicle, or a bobby pin, or your bare fucking hands, but that doesn't mean that just because it's possible means you should be able to down 20 people in that same time frame on a whim.
4. I'm not even going to address the "you're just on a knee-jerk reaction" bit with any sort of dignity. I said the exact same thing on natf2 when Holmes shot up a theater, and I voted for a representative that believes that banning civilians from owning 900 m/s muzzle velocity fully automatic assault rifles doesn't actually equate to meaningful gun control.
5. Your refutation of the chinese cases is on such shaky logic that I wonder if you even read that to yourself. It's the exact same reasoning that leads people to say IF THEY WANT A GUN THEY'LL GET A GUN WHOOPS WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING which then leads to preserving a status quo which involves orders of magnitudes more gun violence per year than other civilized nations. Arguing over whether or not gun control would have prevented this is almost as irrelevant as well because people will always swear by the GET ONE IF YOU WANT IT HARD ENOUGH logic. There's no way to tell if actual gun control laws could have prevented this, but what I said previously and what mustard said are both true. The prevalence and ease of access to deadly firearms is symptomatic of a nation that refuses to tackle the issue whatsoever (probably due to widespread allegiance to outdated ideals/logic of futility) and it is clear that we need to stop fetishizing weaponry as a society to see real change.
clckwrkbrownymasterEvery time a massacre happens
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are pretty different.
I addressed that in my second post. I thought it was obvious they had different utility, but they still have lethal capacity. Just like how guns can be used for hunting and for exhibitions. My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.
[quote=clckwrk][quote=brownymaster][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii17sjSwfA]Every time a massacre happens[/url]
But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.
It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.[/quote]
? Kitchen knives are used to conduct kitchen activities. Cars are used to travel long distances in a short amount of time. These two are capable of killing, but arguably their usefulness outweighs the fact that they can kill. Cars are also designed to limit their killing potential. Archery is slightly different, as it does have the same intrinsic nature as guns, but unless Legolas decided it was time take his anger out on an elementary school I don't think we'd ever see 25 people effortlessly killed with an archery bow. A knife is almost identical. Of course these three things are capable of killing, but compared to a gun their efficiency at it is nearly incomparable. This is the reason the military uses guns and not bow and arrow.
So, yeah, it's pretty easy to draw lines between things that are [i]pretty[/i] different.[/quote]
I addressed that in my second post. I thought it was obvious they had different utility, but they still have lethal capacity. Just like how guns can be used for hunting and for exhibitions. My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.
brownymasterMy second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.
I'm just going to let that one sink in
[quote=brownymaster]My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.[/quote]
I'm just going to let that one sink in
brownymasterI addressed that in my second post. I thought it was obvious they had different utility, but they still have lethal capacity. Just like how guns can be used for hunting and for exhibitions. My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.
So, what I am gathering from this post is that you're saying we should ban guns because of their very easy skill curve and extremely high "maximum lethality".
[quote=brownymaster]
I addressed that in my second post. I thought it was obvious they had different utility, but they still have lethal capacity. Just like how guns can be used for hunting and for exhibitions. My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.[/quote]
So, what I am gathering from this post is that you're saying we should ban guns because of their very easy skill curve and extremely high "maximum lethality".
EggplantSo, what I am gathering from this post is that you're saying we should ban guns because of their very easy skill curve and extremely high "maximum lethality".
If that's where you want to draw the line, then yes. I personally don't think banning guns can be easily done at this point in time because it'd fuck over all gun collectors and current gun owners anyways. I'm just saying that you should be able to create a standard for banning weapons. I just really hate inconsistencies based off how a person feels at the time (look at old gotfrag unlock threads if you care).
EDIT: Let me put it this way in a fake argument:
Why should guns be banned? Because guns can be used to kill people.
But other things can be used to kill people too. But guns are very easy to use to kill people.
But so are cars. But guns aren't part of the everyday economy like cars are. Cars are really useful.
What about bow and arrows? Bows and arrows can't kill as many people as a single gun could.
Lethality line. That's generally where the argument goes, at least the way I see it.
[quote=Eggplant]So, what I am gathering from this post is that you're saying we should ban guns because of their very easy skill curve and extremely high "maximum lethality".[/quote]
If that's where you want to draw the line, then yes. I personally don't think banning guns can be easily done at this point in time because it'd fuck over all gun collectors and current gun owners anyways. I'm just saying that you should be able to create a standard for banning weapons. I just really hate inconsistencies based off how a person feels at the time (look at old gotfrag unlock threads if you care).
EDIT: Let me put it this way in a fake argument:
Why should guns be banned? Because guns can be used to kill people.
But other things can be used to kill people too. But guns are very easy to use to kill people.
But so are cars. But guns aren't part of the everyday economy like cars are. Cars are really useful.
What about bow and arrows? Bows and arrows can't kill as many people as a single gun could.
Lethality line. That's generally where the argument goes, at least the way I see it.
but it helped teenage girls get lots of likes on their statuses
but it helped teenage girls get lots of likes on their statuses
brownymaster Let me put it this way, why should guns be banned? Because they can be used to kill people. But other things can too. But they're very easy to use to kill people. But so are cars. But guns aren't part of the everyday economy which would collapse. What about knives? Knives can't kill as many people as a single gun could. Lethality line. That's generally where the argument goes, at least the way I see it.
So you've established a principle of "lethality line" to determine what objects pose a great risk to society. So what's the problem with drawing the line between guns and knives/cars? Surely you can see how a gun has more potential for targeted and malicious destruction than either of those things.
[quote=brownymaster] Let me put it this way, why should guns be banned? Because they can be used to kill people. But other things can too. But they're very easy to use to kill people. But so are cars. But guns aren't part of the everyday economy which would collapse. What about knives? Knives can't kill as many people as a single gun could. Lethality line. That's generally where the argument goes, at least the way I see it.[/quote]
So you've established a principle of "lethality line" to determine what objects pose a great risk to society. So what's the problem with drawing the line between guns and knives/cars? Surely you can see how a gun has more potential for targeted and malicious destruction than either of those things.
EggplantSo you've established a principle of "lethality line" to determine what objects pose a great risk to society. So what's the problem with drawing the line between guns and knives/cars? Surely you can see how a gun has more potential for targeted and malicious destruction than either of those things.
It is definitely more, but some people draw the line elsewhere. People who hunt or quickdraw don't think the risk is high enough (ie because explosive precursors aren't banned and they can kill a lot of people. Much more than any gun could if userd properly). Or some people believe in the retaliation clause and bad guys will have it idea.
I personally don't care much because my caring doesn't do anything (no gun law votes anytime soon, and I'm not going to try to get a proposition or anything in my state). Crazy people killing others is always going to happen, and I'm fine with the scarce statistics. Rather not deal with prohibition with the current US culture, but I could live if guns are banned or not. I'm just trying to make sure you keep consistent. Is there anything else that's legal that you should be banning if you outlawed guns, mainly.
[quote=Eggplant]So you've established a principle of "lethality line" to determine what objects pose a great risk to society. So what's the problem with drawing the line between guns and knives/cars? Surely you can see how a gun has more potential for targeted and malicious destruction than either of those things.[/quote]
It is definitely more, but some people draw the line elsewhere. People who hunt or quickdraw don't think the risk is high enough (ie because explosive precursors aren't banned and they can kill a lot of people. Much more than any gun could if userd properly). Or some people believe in the retaliation clause and bad guys will have it idea.
I personally don't care much because my caring doesn't do anything (no gun law votes anytime soon, and I'm not going to try to get a proposition or anything in my state). Crazy people killing others is always going to happen, and I'm fine with the scarce statistics. Rather not deal with prohibition with the current US culture, but I could live if guns are banned or not. I'm just trying to make sure you keep consistent. Is there anything else that's legal that you should be banning if you outlawed guns, mainly.
Regardless of whether or not guns should be illegal,I think we all can agree that it's sickening that this kind of atrocity happens even in this day and age. Even if guns are outlawed, it still doesn't alleviate the underlying social problems that continue to afflict us. Poverty, inequality, lack of opportunity, despair, and even just general disgust and indifference towards our fellow man (shown by a lack of understanding for the mentally disabled) are the real killers. I watched American Psycho yesterday, and along with this tragedy, I'm pretty shaken up. Hopefully incidents like these don't become an occuring trend
Regardless of whether or not guns should be illegal,I think we all can agree that it's sickening that this kind of atrocity happens even in this day and age. Even if guns are outlawed, it still doesn't alleviate the underlying social problems that continue to afflict us. Poverty, inequality, lack of opportunity, despair, and even just general disgust and indifference towards our fellow man (shown by a lack of understanding for the mentally disabled) are the real killers. I watched American Psycho yesterday, and along with this tragedy, I'm pretty shaken up. Hopefully incidents like these don't become an occuring trend
It does bother me Mustard, that you begin and end your post with gross misrepresentations (complete with ANGRY WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!) of my argument. It would be nice if you could respond to my post without trying to straw man me.
I find the concept of originalism distasteful and I know a lot of other people do as well, which is I suspect, why you tried to pin that label on me. I am not an originalist, I do not believe the founding fathers to be infallible and I do not even own a gun. I do however think, that people are too eager to dismiss the 2nd amendment as based on outdated reasoning without stopping to consider why the right to bear arms was deemed important in the first place.
Even imagining stricter gun control laws had been place for generations up until this point what would have been different? Surely you're not arguing that Adam Lanza would not have developed serious psychological issues and become violent? Would you consider it a win if he had attacked the school with a machete instead of a gun?
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that we have a tendency to ignore issues until a tragedy occurs, but It makes me uncomfortable to see how some people rush to exploit the emotional vulnerability and impulsiveness of the public after such tragedies to further their own agendas (even if they think its for a good cause).
As for the hypothetical murder on the streets of Baltimore (yes I agree "The Wire" was a good show) you argue that it is the fault of "the failing American economic system and the War on Drugs". So why then do you place blame for the Newtown massacre on the guns the shooter used and not the factors that led to his mental illness?
In my original post I said that I was upset that so many people were ignoring the mental illness aspect of this story. Ironically, you chose to ignore this section of my post which I feel proves my point a little bit.
I think most people agree with some form of gun control. I think even the most hard core NRA member would admit that you have to draw the line somewhere (you can't have private citizens owning cruise missiles). It is simply a question of where to draw that line and that is a tricky question because owning a gun IS a right (whether or not it should be is what we're debating right now). I think that stricter gun control laws would have an impact on crime, but that that impact would have to be weighed against the loss of freedom entailed.
I would also appreciate if you would not accuse me of condoning homicide.
It does bother me Mustard, that you begin and end your post with gross misrepresentations (complete with ANGRY WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!) of my argument. It would be nice if you could respond to my post without trying to straw man me.
I find the concept of originalism distasteful and I know a lot of other people do as well, which is I suspect, why you tried to pin that label on me. I am not an originalist, I do not believe the founding fathers to be infallible and I do not even own a gun. I do however think, that people are too eager to dismiss the 2nd amendment as based on outdated reasoning without stopping to consider why the right to bear arms was deemed important in the first place.
Even imagining stricter gun control laws had been place for generations up until this point what would have been different? Surely you're not arguing that Adam Lanza would not have developed serious psychological issues and become violent? Would you consider it a win if he had attacked the school with a machete instead of a gun?
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that we have a tendency to ignore issues until a tragedy occurs, but It makes me uncomfortable to see how some people rush to exploit the emotional vulnerability and impulsiveness of the public after such tragedies to further their own agendas (even if they think its for a good cause).
As for the hypothetical murder on the streets of Baltimore (yes I agree "The Wire" was a good show) you argue that it is the fault of "the failing American economic system and the War on Drugs". So why then do you place blame for the Newtown massacre on the guns the shooter used and not the factors that led to his mental illness?
In my original post I said that I was upset that so many people were ignoring the mental illness aspect of this story. Ironically, you chose to ignore this section of my post which I feel proves my point a little bit.
I think most people agree with some form of gun control. I think even the most hard core NRA member would admit that you have to draw the line somewhere (you can't have private citizens owning cruise missiles). It is simply a question of where to draw that line and that is a tricky question because owning a gun IS a right (whether or not it should be is what we're debating right now). I think that stricter gun control laws would have an impact on crime, but that that impact would have to be weighed against the loss of freedom entailed.
I would also appreciate if you would not accuse me of condoning homicide.
guns r bad they shot ppl why people have 2 use guns..................... freaking s2[pid
guns r bad they shot ppl why people have 2 use guns..................... freaking s2[pid
whyyy people liek shot. why people like 2 shot. smh if u like gun.
whyyy people liek shot. why people like 2 shot. smh if u like gun.
if u like gun so much why dont u marry it!!!!!!!!!!! s2pd
if u like gun so much why dont u marry it!!!!!!!!!!! s2pd
mesr go home, youre dhriugnhk
mesr go home, youre dhriugnhk
I just don't see how, without the ready access to handguns that exists in the US, this guy could walk into an elementary school and kill 20 kids and 7 faculty.
If there is a purpose to handguns other than to harm people, I am not aware of it.
I just don't see how, without the ready access to handguns that exists in the US, this guy could walk into an elementary school and kill 20 kids and 7 faculty.
If there is a purpose to handguns other than to harm people, I am not aware of it.
I just got done debating this with a friend. I'm just going to say America was built to serve it's people. It started by given the people as much freedom as possible. When alcohol was banned not too many people was happy about that. Guns aren't going to banned - even with pressure from the UN. Why? because it's a constitutional right. Any banning or mass recalling of guns will lead to something similar to the years of 1861 - 1865 or what is going on in the middle east.
Any psychological test will not work unless it is constantly being applied. Even then you still do not know anything about the person. With stricter laws then maybe but as long as someone has the cash, laws don't mean shit.
Face it America was a fucked up place to begin with and it's people are just as fucked up. The saying guns don't kill people, people kill people is true. Guns just make it easier.
I just got done debating this with a friend. I'm just going to say America was built to serve it's people. It started by given the people as much freedom as possible. When alcohol was banned not too many people was happy about that. Guns aren't going to banned - even with pressure from the UN. Why? because it's a constitutional right. Any banning or mass recalling of guns will lead to something similar to the years of 1861 - 1865 or what is going on in the middle east.
Any psychological test will not work unless it is constantly being applied. Even then you still do not know anything about the person. With stricter laws then maybe but as long as someone has the cash, laws don't mean shit.
Face it America was a fucked up place to begin with and it's people are just as fucked up. The saying guns don't kill people, people kill people is true. Guns just make it easier.
people also have a constitutional right to not get shot though
people also have a constitutional right to not get shot though
Point 1:
How about this logic: It's much easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife, or car, or any other stupid excuse someone in this thread has used. So why not eliminate (or restrict, with legitimate constraints) the easiest option, and see what happens.
Point 2:
Yes, the reason behind a gun-killer's action should also be addressed, by why not deal with both issues? You're a grown up country, right? You have the ability to multi task, right?
Point 3:
Please, for the love of god, stop bring up the Bill of Rights. "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."
I see the word "regulated" in there (got forbid you do that), the word "militia" (since, yeah, that's still necessary when you have the largest military force in the world), and the phrase "security of the free state" (since, obviously, everyone owning a handgun is key to defending the nation from foreign invasion, which is what the clause really means if anyone with half a brain reads it properly).
Point 4:
Look, I get that I look at it from a different world - for many, guns are a part of every day life (rural life, mostly - and Republican, apparently), and to take one's gun away is like taking away someone's freedom. But with such events happening way more often in the US than anywhere else, don't you think it's time for a bit of a compromise? You were pretty big on compromises, once upon a time. Maybe sacrifice a weee bit of your "gun freedom" for even the potential of ending such heinous events? Maybe?
What I hate the most is that your freaking politicians can't even *talk* about this stuff. YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT. TALK. OPENLY. ABOUT. GUN. CONTROL. GOD FORBID.
At the end of the day, thank heavens I live in Canada.
Point 1:
How about this logic: It's much easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife, or car, or any other stupid excuse someone in this thread has used. So why not eliminate (or restrict, with legitimate constraints) the easiest option, and see what happens.
Point 2:
Yes, the reason behind a gun-killer's action should also be addressed, by why not deal with both issues? You're a grown up country, right? You have the ability to multi task, right?
Point 3:
Please, for the love of god, stop bring up the Bill of Rights. "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."
I see the word "regulated" in there (got forbid you do that), the word "militia" (since, yeah, that's still necessary when you have the largest military force in the world), and the phrase "security of the free state" (since, obviously, everyone owning a handgun is key to defending the nation from foreign invasion, which is what the clause really means if anyone with half a brain reads it properly).
Point 4:
Look, I get that I look at it from a different world - for many, guns are a part of every day life (rural life, mostly - and Republican, apparently), and to take one's gun away is like taking away someone's freedom. But with such events happening way more often in the US than anywhere else, don't you think it's time for a bit of a compromise? You were pretty big on compromises, once upon a time. Maybe sacrifice a weee bit of your "gun freedom" for even the potential of ending such heinous events? Maybe?
What I hate the most is that your freaking politicians can't even *talk* about this stuff. YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT. TALK. OPENLY. ABOUT. GUN. CONTROL. GOD FORBID.
At the end of the day, thank heavens I live in Canada.
defiance"he stole the guns"
OMG WE NEED TOUGHER GUN CONTROL LAWS
Well, let's consider ourself lucky he didn't steal a nuclear warhead!
Wait.
He couldn't, because common people aren't allowed to have nuclear warheads and he was just 1 guy, not enough to storm a military base.
Do we really have to spell this out in every single thread about gun control? The same arguments every single time.
"But, but, why make guns illegal, criminals aren't following the laws anyway!"
Durrrrr.
Guns not being legal = harder to get guns, even for criminals.
Don't you find it weird there's never any rocket launcher kill in the US?
Do you think it's because no one would like too? It's because they can't get their hand on it, even if they'd steal it from a legal owner; there's no legal owner beside the forces.
If no one but cops and military could own guns, criminals would have a much harder time getting their hands on guns, especially unorganised criminals like that shooter.
Allow people to own rocket launchers, and I guarantee you some GTA kid or crazy old guy goes on a spree within a month.
vertoThe saying guns don't kill people, people kill people is true.
This saying would also works to allow people to own every single weapon that ever existed.
Ballistic missiles don't kill people! People kill people! Yet you wouldn't like for your neighbors to have ballistic missiles, so why guns?
Where to draw the line?
Knifes? Guns? Rifles? Sniper rifles? RPG? Tanks? Fighter jets? Missiles? Nuclear warheads?
The saying works will all of that.
But the difference is, the only thing that's usefull for non-violent purpose in that list is the knife ( to cut food and stuff ).
And to that guy who posted the link about someone who wounded 22 in China with a knife...
Well, first of all, that's not common. We always hear about gun-wielding shooters who fail to kill more than like 5... Whether by lack of skill, or losing the will to do so, changed their mind or wtv.
But for someone who is crazy motivated enough to actually hit 22 with aknife... A gun in that guy's hand would have been dramatic. He would have done much worse.
[quote=defiance]"he stole the guns"
OMG WE NEED TOUGHER GUN CONTROL LAWS[/quote]
Well, let's consider ourself lucky he didn't steal a nuclear warhead!
Wait.
He couldn't, because common people aren't allowed to have nuclear warheads and he was just 1 guy, not enough to storm a military base.
Do we really have to spell this out in every single thread about gun control? The same arguments every single time.
"But, but, why make guns illegal, criminals aren't following the laws anyway!"
Durrrrr.
Guns not being legal = harder to get guns, even for criminals.
Don't you find it weird there's never any rocket launcher kill in the US?
Do you think it's because no one would like too? It's because they can't get their hand on it, even if they'd steal it from a legal owner; there's no legal owner beside the forces.
If no one but cops and military could own guns, criminals would have a much harder time getting their hands on guns, especially unorganised criminals like that shooter.
Allow people to own rocket launchers, and I guarantee you some GTA kid or crazy old guy goes on a spree within a month.
[quote=verto]The saying guns don't kill people, people kill people is true.[/quote]
This saying would also works to allow people to own every single weapon that ever existed.
Ballistic missiles don't kill people! People kill people! Yet you wouldn't like for your neighbors to have ballistic missiles, so why guns?
Where to draw the line?
Knifes? Guns? Rifles? Sniper rifles? RPG? Tanks? Fighter jets? Missiles? Nuclear warheads?
The saying works will all of that.
But the difference is, the only thing that's usefull for non-violent purpose in that list is the knife ( to cut food and stuff ).
And to that guy who posted the link about someone who wounded 22 in China with a knife...
Well, first of all, that's not common. We always hear about gun-wielding shooters who fail to kill more than like 5... Whether by lack of skill, or losing the will to do so, changed their mind or wtv.
But for someone who is crazy motivated enough to actually hit 22 with aknife... A gun in that guy's hand would have been dramatic. He would have done much worse.