On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2013, 01:45 PM
Re: On guns, where does one draw the line
When did I say to ban guns? And please back up your claim that more restrictions would likely result in more deaths. What developed nation with stringent gun laws saw that occur? Stop blindly quoting the NRA.

And if you can see events like those of Newtown and not think change is necessary to prevent deaths from occurring, you are a part of the problem. That is like saying that incidents of rape in the church are not worth pursuing because that has seemingly occurred for decades and changing laws to prevent it would mean restricting the freedoms of the church.

You're as blind in your devotion to guns as egor is to his devotion to delusion.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-02-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 01:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When did I say to ban guns? And please back up your claim that more restrictions would likely result in more deaths. What developed nation with stringent gun laws saw that occur?

Mexico. Can't even own guns that fire .223 or .308 or 9mm there, and yet the murder rate is astronomical and you have places like Juarez.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 02:15 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 02:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 01:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When did I say to ban guns? And please back up your claim that more restrictions would likely result in more deaths. What developed nation with stringent gun laws saw that occur?

Mexico. Can't even own guns that fire .223 or .308 or 9mm there, and yet the murder rate is astronomical and you have places like Juarez.
And we go back to a third-world country where (as I have also said numerous times) deaths are the result of social problems, not guns.

People, I know that our crime in the US is not the cause of guns. I. Get. It. But saying guns have no role in our problems with events like Newtown, Aurora, and that incident in Alabama (where the guy was awaiting trial for SHOOTING AT HIS NEIGHBORS), is absurd. I am not advocating changes to our gun laws to reduce crime, but to help prevent these incidences of unusual and extreme violence. Let me just...here we go....I am NOT advocating changes to our gun laws to REDUCE CRIME, but to help PREVENT these incidences of unusual and extreme violence.

Why is that so damn hard to get?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-02-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Murders are always the result of social problems.


Why is it so hard to get? Perhaps because this is the first time you've said it? Fuckin' christ on a bike.


So you ONLY care about the rare (YES rare) incidences of extreme and unusual violence? You don't care about the people who defend themselves with guns? Prevented rapes, prevented murders, prevented robberies because of guns, where thousands of lives are saved yearly, because you're so upset over some dozens of deaths from lunatics. And rather than work to improve mental healthcare you say we should just take away guns. Oh yes, because that will solve everything and have no negative consequences. Not at all. Of course not.

BeardedDude, you don't give a shit about actually reducing these deaths. You just want to feel like you're doing something, like those assholes who put yellow ribbons on their cars but don't give a dime or lift a finger to actually do shit. Your "modest proposals" are ridiculous and poorly reasoned. Your research is narrow and focused only on justifying what you wanted to do in the first place. You refuse to learn anything about guns before calling for their banning, and so the legislation you propose would likely be entirely ineffective anyway.


What I'm saying is, man up and find a solution that will actually DO SOMETHING to prevent what you want to prevent, rather than just go with the first notion that enters your uneducated mind, like your IDIOTIC little notion of "LETS LIMIT AMMUNITION WOOOO YEAH GREAT IDEA."





BeardedDude, you're a smart guy. Act like it. Look at the problem and find a solution, don't look at your favorite solution and invent a problem.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Paragraph 1.
Okay, well you don't have to agree to disagree, but your only other option is to disagree to disagree (which would be to agree with me) or to just remain silent on the issue. You adhere to a political philosophy in which the government takes care of you and I adhere to a philosophy that we should take care of ourselves and that's it. I am telling you that further discourse on this will be in vain. You not gonna convince me and I have no interest in trying to convince you to change political philosophy.

2.
Since your solution includes aggressive taxing and using the tax money to provide training then what is done with the tax money has a huge bearing on your solution.
Step 1. Tax. Step 2. Use tax money too....wait where is the tax money?!
See, it is not a separate issue, it is directly linked to your solution.

3.
That is where we differ, I'd rather spend my money how I see fit. I'm old enough where I do not require a nanny.

4.
This is just ridiculous. It really doesn't matter why a technology is developed. By this logic we should keep Jeeps out of the hands of civilians because it is designed for warfare. If I want to use hollow-points for self-defense I can and should.

5.
Fine, it's moot, but just so you know....http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/02/05/d...americans/ We've killed about 2500 people, many of which are civilians.

6.
And I say that my rights end when I harm others or take away their rights. Since I have done neither of those things there is no reason for you to infringe on my rights. If I shoot someone without just cause then I can no longer own firearms so that is already in place.

7.
The government is not part of business (see corporatism ) it has declared that it has a right to have a monopoly as a US letter currier service. The private sector is doing the same job for packages and making huge profits while the USPS is bleeding profusely due to their inefficiency. This costs us money. If the private sector was allowed to compete you'd pay less AND have better service, which is to the point. The government is inefficient.

8.
If people want to harm themselves then so be it. It's my body and if I choose to destroy it it's none of your fucking business. Trying to socially engineering people so that that act in a way in which you feel is beneficial is morally reprehensible. Not only that, but it is largely ineffective at reaching it's goal and creates much more dangerous black markets in the cases of guns and ammunition. Like I've said previously, you cannot unring a bell. The supply is out there, the demand is there so people will get it, the question is how will they get it and at what cost (both financial and in harm done.)

9. Nice try. If Sweden and the UK want to be part of a nanny state then they should have it, no skin off my nose. I just don't want that in my home. Furthermore I'd say my view is far more "hippy" than socialism.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 02:49 PM
Re: On guns, where does one draw the line
I. Did. Not. Say. Ban. All. Guns.

If people want guns for self-defense, fine. But that does not mean they should not be required to register it, get a license, have insurance for it, redo their training and license annually, etc.

I want better mental health care too. This is not a thread about health care. This is a thread about gun rights and gun laws. Changes to those can help prevent those rare cases, that aren't rare enough when we read about a new one every few weeks. If our laws put in place checks and balances to detect mental breaks before they snap, that can potentially help prevent instances of extreme and unusual violence.

I'm not advocating for any more hoops than one goes through to drive a car. Why are they unreasonable?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-02-2013, 02:56 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Because there are enough people who *want* to ban guns, really and totally, that doing that would lead to stricter controls. It's not a slippery slope when it actually happens. I will mention Canada to you one more time. I suggest you research it. Takes five minutes. Go. Do it now. That's why gun users won't compromise.


Like I said if it STOPPED at licensing and such, I would be fine. I am opposed to registration of guns, because the DMV is already enough of a pain in the ass and we don't need another massive fucking bureaucracy, especially when it would do diddly to stop massacres. Seriously, what would that do? Anyway, start talking to other people who want stricter gun laws and convince them to STOP at licensing, and to drop bullshit like magazine bans or banning weapons because "oh no they had that gun in call of duty it must be evil!" Then in 50 years when all old assholes like Brady have died off, maybe we can have a political climate suitable for a compromise. As is, both sides are full of fucking crazy people who will not compromise. Yes, the left is as crazy as the right this time.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 02:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I. Did. Not. Say. Ban. All. Guns.

If people want guns for self-defense, fine. But that does not mean they should not be required to register it, get a license, have insurance for it, redo their training and license annually, etc.

I want better mental health care too. This is not a thread about health care. This is a thread about gun rights and gun laws. Changes to those can help prevent those rare cases, that aren't rare enough when we read about a new one every few weeks. If our laws put in place checks and balances to detect mental breaks before they snap, that can potentially help prevent instances of extreme and unusual violence.

I'm not advocating for any more hoops than one goes through to drive a car. Why are they unreasonable?
Mass shootings are way more rare than mental breakdowns and you are asking for more hoops to jump through. How often do you have to go drivers ed classes?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 02:48 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Paragraph 1.
Okay, well you don't have to agree to disagree, but your only other option is to disagree to disagree (which would be to agree with me) or to just remain silent on the issue. You adhere to a political philosophy in which the government takes care of you and I adhere to a philosophy that we should take care of ourselves and that's it. I am telling you that further discourse on this will be in vain. You not gonna convince me and I have no interest in trying to convince you to change political philosophy.

2.
Since your solution includes aggressive taxing and using the tax money to provide training then what is done with the tax money has a huge bearing on your solution.
Step 1. Tax. Step 2. Use tax money too....wait where is the tax money?!
See, it is not a separate issue, it is directly linked to your solution.

3.
That is where we differ, I'd rather spend my money how I see fit. I'm old enough where I do not require a nanny.

4.
This is just ridiculous. It really doesn't matter why a technology is developed. By this logic we should keep Jeeps out of the hands of civilians because it is designed for warfare. If I want to use hollow-points for self-defense I can and should.

5.
Fine, it's moot, but just so you know....http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/02/05/d...americans/ We've killed about 2500 people, many of which are civilians.

6.
And I say that my rights end when I harm others or take away their rights. Since I have done neither of those things there is no reason for you to infringe on my rights. If I shoot someone without just cause then I can no longer own firearms so that is already in place.

7.
The government is not part of business (see corporatism ) it has declared that it has a right to have a monopoly as a US letter currier service. The private sector is doing the same job for packages and making huge profits while the USPS is bleeding profusely due to their inefficiency. This costs us money. If the private sector was allowed to compete you'd pay less AND have better service, which is to the point. The government is inefficient.

8.
If people want to harm themselves then so be it. It's my body and if I choose to destroy it it's none of your fucking business. Trying to socially engineering people so that that act in a way in which you feel is beneficial is morally reprehensible. Not only that, but it is largely ineffective at reaching it's goal and creates much more dangerous black markets in the cases of guns and ammunition. Like I've said previously, you cannot unring a bell. The supply is out there, the demand is there so people will get it, the question is how will they get it and at what cost (both financial and in harm done.)

9. Nice try. If Sweden and the UK want to be part of a nanny state then they should have it, no skin off my nose. I just don't want that in my home. Furthermore I'd say my view is far more "hippy" than socialism.
We're kind of getting somewhere now, but I am saying that we should be trying to change each others political ideologies. If we are both unwilling to amend our views on a subject when presented with arguments and facts, how do we differ from religious zealots who stick their fingers in their ears when someone criticizes their religion?

And I still don't mean "aggressive taxing" since I don't really know what that means. I'm not saying a 50% tax on bullets and guns, but maybe 5%? I don't know what would work but it does not have to mean much. 5% would be a nickel on every dollar. That's 80 cents for $40 worth of ammo and $25 on a $500 gun. I don't think that is unreasonable.

I too would rather I spend my money where I see fit, but personal security and personal health are places I see fit. And universal healthcare is beneficial for us all, since our current system has us paying for ER visits anyways, we are already paying for healthcare for everyone, just in a more expensive way. We have policemen and the military for our protection in the domestic and foreign domains. We don't live in the wild west anymore where you need a gun on your hip for protection from people and animals, but if you want one, you can have one (as long as you are deemed safe and competent to handle one).

And jeeps were not designed exclusively for military weaponry. They were designed for navigating rough terrain for the military. By your logic everyone should have equal access to the same stuff the military does?

I am aware of our shitty drone program.

I never accused you of violating the law. And the laws and changes to gun laws won't make you a criminal. They just mean you have to be registered and evaluated to carry your weapon. Not have it taken away. You or I could experience a mental break at any given time due to unforeseen circumstances. It could be psychological (my wife leaves me and takes my son would leave me heavily depressed and I do not know how I would react and I would love to say in a non-violent way, but I imagine most would say that). It could be physical, like the University of Texas in the 50's(?) where a student shot people from the clock-tower and was later found to have a massive brain tumor. Perhaps a regular annual check might have sent him to a doctor for further treatment and he would have remained a productive citizen? With his gun?

I have seen plenty of incompetent and shitty UPS and FedEx drivers. The last delivery woman drove the wrong way down our one-way street to bring us a package. I asked her if she knew it was a one-way and she said yes. Fucking moron. The USPS may not be considered as efficient, but I have no qualms with them, nor do I have a problem with certain government services.

And please don't give me that entitlement rant that I want the government to take care of me like I am some sort of child while you are the responsible adult keeping up for yourself. Healthcare should not be a business and neither should the safety of the citizens of a country.

And I am not trying to stop someone from hurting themselves. If people want to smoke, go ahead. Cocaine? Fine by me. Shoot your guns at someone else? No. See, those things that affect only the individual are their responsibility, but those things they control that affect (or have the potential to affect) everyone else, is not solely their responsibility. You don't want just any old yahoo to drive a car, because you use the same roads. Go to a country like Costa Rica where the traffic laws are essentially non-existent and see how well a deregulated public utility works.

If you don't want to be like the UK or Sweden, then why does Sweden's take on guns matter at all?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 02:15 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 02:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Mexico. Can't even own guns that fire .223 or .308 or 9mm there, and yet the murder rate is astronomical and you have places like Juarez.
And we go back to a third-world country where (as I have also said numerous times) deaths are the result of social problems, not guns.

People, I know that our crime in the US is not the cause of guns. I. Get. It. But saying guns have no role in our problems with events like Newtown, Aurora, and that incident in Alabama (where the guy was awaiting trial for SHOOTING AT HIS NEIGHBORS), is absurd. I am not advocating changes to our gun laws to reduce crime, but to help prevent these incidences of unusual and extreme violence. Let me just...here we go....I am NOT advocating changes to our gun laws to REDUCE CRIME, but to help PREVENT these incidences of unusual and extreme violence.

Why is that so damn hard to get?

The premise is pretty simple: where no firearms are present, there is less violence that includes firearms.

And actually studies have found this to be the case- but not just that crimes involve fewer guns, but studies have found that where there are fewer guns present the homicide rates are lower (not just homicide involving guns, but particularly homicide involving guns), or inversely stated: "more guns=more homicide".

So crime might not necessarily go down, but crimes that result in people being killed will go down. And crime where people are injured with a gun will go down.

I have a hard time believing that what the NRA says, that we need more people armed more often, is true. A study focused on three US cities in 1998 showed that a gun was more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, fatal or nonfatal accident, or suicide attempt than a legally justifiable self defense shooting.

Quote:During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

With regard to the study, I'll admit that it probably doesn't take into account incidents where a gun was used to deter a crime but not fired. I don't know how often that occurs to be able to say how much of an impact it would have of that type of study... but in cases where a gun is used, it is clearly not in favor of self-defense.

As far as the Newtown massacre and other high profile incidents go, as tragic as those incidents are, they account for a very small percentage of the problem of gun violence. Gun violence is a problem that occurs in many more and much smaller incidents throughout the nation. And the type of gun involved most of those crimes is the handgun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kineo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: