Throatpunch
Banned
Don't question him. Ignore the random unexplained outbursts of drivel, its unhealthy to pay attention to his lunatic populist ramblings.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Yeah well, I am just curious if he has a reason to doubt the data. Who knows, maybe did some mistakes. I am not an expert on those things. I just believe that even without all those statistisc it's clear that the US has a problem with mass shootings. How to solve that? Or what the real cause is? No clue. But I think that you can see the gun culture they created as one of the reasons. How big of a reason it is? Again. No clue! But it seems that you're already anti gun when you just mention it, even though I would love to own guns, if I could and had the money? I would buy my self a couple of WW2 weapons in an instant. But heh, an MP44 or MG34 costs a little fortune these days. Albeit a G3 or FN FAL would be pretty cool too!
Throatpunch
Banned
Don't get me wrong, I love guns
I have sat for hours reading about guns. I just think they should be strictly controlled.
Last edited:
I am very ... divided on it. As someone who actually very much loves libertarianism - the philosophical side of it, I love the idea of owning a big fucking weapon! Like a machine gun. Why? It just looks cool and they are very fascinating pieces of technology. It shouldn't need a real reason to own it. But when I consider the mindset of the average voter, then I shudder at the thought of not heavily controlled and regulated things like firearms.
Because the honest truth is, on paper the average civilian should be trusted with a lot of stuff, but in reality we all know how those things usually end. Because people are fucking stupid. That's why you need stickers on a micro wave that says that it's not meant to dry your pets and such stuff.
Because the honest truth is, on paper the average civilian should be trusted with a lot of stuff, but in reality we all know how those things usually end. Because people are fucking stupid. That's why you need stickers on a micro wave that says that it's not meant to dry your pets and such stuff.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
In the US, those stickers are on fishing lures, and say "harmful if swallowed".
*no... really:
*no... really:
Last edited:
Dr. Rosen
First time out of the vault
Sadly that is part of the sue-happy culture in America. As much as I love fishing in this great nation these are the things you tell yourself "Someone was a shit parent to leave this out; even shittier to sue the manufacturer for this shit parenting." while fishing as your eye reads the packaging of your new lure.
Look at the bright side. We have guns so they can readily commit a fast suicide for being sue-happy.
Look at the bright side. We have guns so they can readily commit a fast suicide for being sue-happy.
TheGM
The voice of reason
It's essentially that picture SuAside posted. and not just cherry picking, but also manipulating them as well. Let's correlate having less guns meaning less suicides but edit out Japan and South Korea from the list since that hurt our narrative.
The Irony.
And what's wrong with me being Popular?
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
The problem with gun laws is that we need a balance between readily controlling guns, and allowing the majority of the responsible population to own them. People should probably be screened before buying a gun, but actually implementing a screening process that works with both of the above points is REALLY delicate. Let's not forget, law makers can just as easily mess things up as anyone else.
I don't think many sane people think we should ban all guns in the US. There are region-specific uses for them, as well as the added benefit of general defense.
But on the other side, there's no rational argument for un-regulated guns, either. We see the effects of psychopaths with guns (as well as other weapons and improvised weapons) all the time nowadays, and it's irrational to think that children or the mentally-handicapped should own guns, either.
So it comes down to a grey area that is extremely difficult to implement in a balanced manner. We need things to change, obviously, but a huge change could ruin people's lives.
I think the whole discussion kind of beckons for a flame-war, though.
I don't think many sane people think we should ban all guns in the US. There are region-specific uses for them, as well as the added benefit of general defense.
But on the other side, there's no rational argument for un-regulated guns, either. We see the effects of psychopaths with guns (as well as other weapons and improvised weapons) all the time nowadays, and it's irrational to think that children or the mentally-handicapped should own guns, either.
So it comes down to a grey area that is extremely difficult to implement in a balanced manner. We need things to change, obviously, but a huge change could ruin people's lives.
I think the whole discussion kind of beckons for a flame-war, though.
You can always tell if you're educated about guns. In some cases you need to clear the chamber and look inside to be able to see, but you'll always know.
You keep saying "own", but that's not true. Most states have laws saying you need to be 18 to buy rifles and shotguns, 21 to buy handguns. Some states allow civilian transfer (not through federally licensed firearms sellers) to children.
Children by & large shoot under supervision. A tiny minority might have access to the firearms (as made obvious by the few instances of them shooting burglars during home invasions), but that's few & far in between.
But that way it remains a forbidden fruit. How many kids were put off drugs & sex with simple classroom education, do you think? That's not working too well, let me tell you.
However gun education makes sure they can actually handle the guns when they ask to and as a result it's no longer alluring as a forbidden fruit.
I liken it to abstinence education vs sexual education promoting condoms. Do you prefer the american approach saying you shouldn't have sex at all (and utterly failing at it, ending in unprotected sex) or the european approach of raising STD awareness and condom usage?
In general now, but you need to realize there is not a one size fits all solution to gun violence.
Enforcing any kind of meaningful gun control in the US is apt to fail simply due to how many guns are already in private hands and are unregistered in any meaningful way.
That's because anything they give up, is lost forever. Rights are taken away, but never given back. Besides, what they realize is that the right to bear arms will become a privilege to bear arms, as it is in Europe. The american constitution is an interesting piece of work that sets the US apart from the world.
The British Bill of Rights was ground breaking, but the US constitution is just something else.
If I could implement my ideal gun laws for europe, they would be entirely different from my ideal gun laws for the USA. It's just an entirely different country, with a different culture and history. One cannot ignore that.
You keep cherry picking. Yes, there are countries with extreme example of lenient gun control and extremely strict gun control, but shy of outright banning everything or allowing everything, there is very little impact between the moderate gun law implementations and everything ends up being mostly due to the country's culture or economical situation.
If I want to cherry pick, I can show you an american town which legally requires gun ownership of its citizens and has very low crime rates. But I think it's blatantly obvious to all that that is not represenative if we'd try to implement this everywhere. The truth is way more complex than that.
Drawing India into the discussion is even more laughable. India hugely underreports crime. People reporting rape and murder are often laughed out of the police station.
China is an extremely strict & controlled society and whose approach is not unlike the USSR's "there are no serial murders in the Soviet Union, that is purely a capitalist problem!" mindset. How many videos can you find of cars and trucks wilfully running over street urchins or chinese pedestrians crushing the skull of a kid playing on the sidewalk?
So please, let's not go full retard. There's lies, damned lies and statistics.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Indeed; but I'm sure they meant from shooting distance.
Operation Wignut
USSDF Riot Squad
All toy guns with any kind of realism nowadays REQUIRE bright orange tips at the end of the barrel for exactly that reason. Possession of a toy gun without this very important modification is illegal. Now, the most notorious case recently of this type of incident was Tamir Rice. It could be argued whether or not it was justified, but it's an interesting case nevertheless, as well as being pertinent to the conversation.
Throatpunch
Banned
This is an irritatingly convenient thing to say. Lets quote Disraeli and dismiss his entire argument, sounds pretty easy.
And where is the cherry picking when I have used over 5 countries and linked all the crime statistics from said countries, not just used to ones that support my argument?
All these countries are similar to America too, I'm not just going to compare third world countries to the USA (so I am not cherry picking other developed countries, before you say).
The only reason I used China is to show that its concerning that it has similar crime stats to America with a population over 1 billion more, and India because guns are controlled strictly there and the homicide rate is lower, so I could debunk the argument that the USA's crime rates are higher since its bigger.
Source? Please stop saying things like this and not bothering to provide evidence. That also probably depends on which part of India you are in, its a huge country.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Most kids probably lack even the concept that their toy becomes illegal if they clip or deface the orange ring; and likely wouldn't care anyway. Certainly destitute adults planning terror-based hold-ups wouldn't care.
The real terror, is putting the orange ring on a real weapon, to disguise it as a toy.
*But in the dark of an alley, the orange ring doesn't matter. Police have mistakenly killed for pointing plastic laser guns at them; (and cell phones).
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Ammo is so heavily restricted that you can walk into a gun range or gun store and walk out with it.
Anti-gun people keep saying that Switzerland doesn't allow storage of munition at home and other such lies. The government decided not to provide ammo for the soldier to store at home (which was common for decades before). This in no way restricts the soldier or militiaman from buying his own ammo (which is common).
As for people storing their rifle at the armory, of course that's common. And someone already posted an article refuting your point on that.
Of course you'll always have conscripts which are not interested in guns and don't want the hassle of storing it at home...
Funny. There's a guy who documented his manufacturing an AK receiver from a shovel and mounting his own non-standard improvised barrel assembly.
He made a reliable AK receiver from A SHOVEL IN HIS GARAGE.
How many more times do I have to point out that improvised weaponry is EASY to make. Especially if effective range is below 25 meters (which is common crime range).
We have 3D printed single shot guns, we have tubing made shotguns, we have shovels turned into AK receivers, we have Home Depot made submachine guns.
See, this is the problem we run into when discussing gun legislation. Absolutely no respect for truth and facts if they do not allign with the person's opinion or agenda.
Can the ammo be bought without showing any ID? If, say, violent offenders, ex-convicts, etc. can buy ammo I'd say the Swiss system isn't perfect. And given their recent big mass shootings committed with reservist weapons there could be some changes into the system.
Well let's take 100 million factory produced firearms and compare them to 100 million garage-made firearms. Which are going to be more reliable on average? Even if there are some garage-made weapons and also re-activated decorative firearms in, say, the UK, the country still hasn't turned into Brazil or US in terms of gun crims.
Also, a gun enthousiast in Belgium can enjoy both guns and the pretty peaceful society that a relatively strict gun legislation can bring with it. Countries like Brazil, US and South Africa have a different experience. Much of Latin America is pretty much a war zone with nothing but 'normal' gun violence.
Enough that it would drive Germans crazy if there was a case where a child was allowed to shoot a gun, be it on the gun range or anywher else. A case where are 10 year old was seen shooting a weapon? That would be probably one of the fastest ways to loose your licence in Germany. And in my opinion, rightfully so. You don't let your kidz drive a car either. What ever if they own it or not, is irrelevant.
This is what I mean when I am talking about a difference in gun culture between some European states, like Germany and the US. We make a much bigger fuss about such things. I am not saying that all regulations make sense. But again, what is wrong to say that parents are liable if their 6 year olds handle weapons? How often does it happen that children play at a building site and get killed or hurt someone? Yet every building site in Germany has a big fat sign that says, parents are liable for their children. That's simply the reality vs. theory in my opinion, I love libertarianism. But in real live there are to many idiots runing around that dry their pets in a microwave. So we need regulations. At least for some stuff. The one where someone can kill and harm lots of peple with, cars, drugs, and yeah weapons too. I don't like the idea to die because there are to many mal-cop-ninjas walking around, as Hass snicely said.
But like I said, the gun nuts can not even agree to that it is a critcal point and you're always meet with "Muh freedoms!" as like weapons are synonymous with souvereignity or freedom. You know the Alex Jones type of gun owners, which are the kind of people that really irritate me.
However, the freedom of one can be the tyrany of others, as one persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.
Where is the right of parents that their children are protected? Don't think that I am trying to argue from an emotional point here or that I believe a weapon ban is a magical solution, but it's really not hard to understand where parents that eventually loost their children to some crazy mass shooting are coming from when they question the current status. A government has to be there for all their citizens and to represent all their concerns, not just those of one single group.
Not to mention that lobbyism is another point that shouldn't be ignored. When ever a mass shooting happens the sales with weapons skyrockets. This alone shows tht it is a very complex topic. And there are many interests here. And it's pretty clear that the lobby behind the NRA has a much higher financial interest here.
I just argue that the gun lobby has the weaker stand, as I don't believe that there is some kind of agenda to turn the US (or any state) in some kind of tyranical regime just by talking about the issue of mass shootings and if there are ways to improve the situation. I have also yet to see someone seriously defending himself from police brutality with his weapon, if that is the concept behind owning weapons ... that you ... can defend your self from the police. We can see how effective this is in the US right now.
Weapon owners are everywhere the minority, and if the majority would agree with a tyranical regime I don't see how owning weapons would protect them from opression.
Exactly. But just talking about the negative side of it, makes you already anti-gun. Everything has positive and negative points though.
And in the end it always comes down to what you value more. For me personaly? I feel better with the German gun culture, if there is one. But that's just me. However, if they want to keep their culture then they probably have to simply get used to mass shootings.
Last edited:
Sure, but we were talking about playing kids. Not about stick ups.
You're making sweeping statements that are false for 75% of the visitors of this site.
Most countries do not force this type of modification for toys.
On the other hand, there are criminals who modify their pistols to look like toys and shotguns look like supersoakers.
Your problem is that you only pick extremes. You should investigate the intermediates instead. You'll find way more correlation there.
Besides, the statistics you quote are always flawed since no country on earth uses the exact same metrics to report their crime rates. Definitions are different, most notable the inclusion of suicide in murder & violent rates for instance. This creates huge differences.
Have you been living under a rock? Does media you read not report anything AT ALL about the public uprisings in the past few years in India for these very reasons? This behavior resulted in PUBLIC LYNCHINGS INSIDE COURT ROOMS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/w...olice-are-often-part-of-the-problem.html?_r=0
They require ID, yes.
What is your point?
Do you not realize that if Belgian gun laws were implemented in the UK, you would not suddenly have a huge surge in crime either? Yet Belgian gun laws are far more lenient than the British ones.
Moderate gun freedom does not magically raise crime...
Again, what is your point?
I have already said that my own "ideal" gun laws would differ significantly between continents and countries.
But is there really a need for that sign. It should be obvious without signs... That's responsibilization and a big part of libertarianism.
But do we need to ban microwaves because some idiot put his pet in it to dry it?
But how is depriving others of the means to protect themselves a correct thing to do in order to protect "muh children"?
There's endless ways to harm these children. Not so long ago, a belgian nutjob walked into a day care center and started stabbing kids all around. He used a knife. If he had used a firearm, I guarantee you there would've been a call for stricter gun laws (regardless of the gun having a legal origin or not).
How is that fair?
True, but now we get to our current state of affairs. Our countries are rapidly turning into nanny states.
It's gone so far that it's now not only required to wear helmets in Belgium when riding a motocycle, but you also need to wear long sleeves, long pants, gloves and high boots. I'm a biker myself and a commuter. I wear "full battle dress" each time I ride. It seems logical. But I don't feel the need to force others to do the same.
I understand the problem: If someone falls, it'll largely be social security that will have to pick up the tab for the medical bills etc. That's unfair to society. However, why not make private insurance matter? If you can find a company to fully insure you when driving around in a hawaii shirt and toe slippers, that's fine by me. Just don't come crying when you faceplant and you're covered in road rash.
Because a few people did not buy proper protective equipment for their children on motorcycles, it's now illegal to ride with a child. You have a lot of parents who bought their children top grade personal protective equipment and were responsible drivers. They are now punished for the transgressions of a few. I find this unfair.
Same thing goes for most firearms legislation.
The fact I know a dozen people here in Belgium who are NRA lifetime members, should say something. These people cannot be represented by the NRA and have no real direct stake in american gun laws, but they feel they:
- Need to support the plight of the american gun owners.
- Are likely to lose even more gun rights at home if the americans ever decided to go for stricter gun laws. Local media & politicians would have a field day with that, and that would cause ever increasingly strict legislation.
Let me reply with a quote:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If... If... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
It's chilling, and true. Though by no means is success guaranteed if there would have been guns. But that is what americans mean when they say the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny.
There are a great many occasions in history where legal gun owners could've made a difference.
An illustration of what I said before from an american point of view:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The thing is, this isn't a fair comparison. Cakes are enjoyable because you eat them(which is harmless)
Guns are often used with the intention of killing people. They are weapons, so this is there intended purpose. The only real things you can do with guns that don't involve killing is using them at a shooting range, in which case they'd probably provide guns to begin with.
Plus, the purpose of Gun Control isn't to limit you, and if your a law abiding citizen it shouldn't. The point is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, so that they don't use them to endanger people's lives.
Besides?, Were you alive in 1934?, If not, then the comparison doesn't work, because you didn't have the half of the cake taken then to begin with.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I tend to find that careful analogies ~summarily refuted, were often not understood by the ones doing the refuting, or (very commonly) a vulnerable ~often literal tangent is extrapolated from the analogy and leapt upon as attempted "proof" of flawed logic. Analogies demonstrate that something is such in similar way as another thing is such; not that one is such because the other is such also; and [not] subsequently not such if the other is proven false.
*And who is to say what is enjoyable by whom and why; (and whether it's harmless or not)?
Guns are harmless unless used to do harm; and the same could be said for cakes, and pencils.
*And who is to say what is enjoyable by whom and why; (and whether it's harmless or not)?
Last edited:
Yes Sua, in a perfect world. In a perfect world.