Gun Control

Arnust said:
Scalper, why did you feel the need to fling it at the NRA *this* time? You just needed to put the news to answer the "well *I* don't see normal white Americans doing nunnodat!", s'all.
Click to expand...

There's been some talk of cops in this thread, and IMHO that case exemplifies how it would make perfect sense for cops in US to be anti-NRA and in favor of more strict gun laws.
 
Mmm-mm. I'm still processing what you just said but you could've said that.
 
Wow, I love coming to this thread and seeing the logic fallacies.

1. Cops are there to protect you - In the US the supreme court has ruled that the police DO NOT have to protect you

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

You know even if they do have a creed.

2. Cops commit brutality so take all the other guns away and Cops should be anti-NRA. I think most people would agree that police world wide do not like civilians owning firearms as it makes there job harder (never know who will have one). So inherently that would make them anti-NRA. Hell the RCMP in Canada do ever thing they are allowed to, to restrict ownership, including re-interpreting laws when the anti-gun political parties are in charge and will not challenge them. I really like this fact as if gun control limits or removes all civilian ownership that leaves all guns in the militaries and police hands, the very police hands that shoot people when they open doors. Plus blaming the police 100% for that ignores the fact that someone phoned the police with deliberate false information you know the ROOT CAUSE of this.

And as far as the police shooting people, we were not there to judge what happened to make an officer do this. The vast majority of these cases find the police completely justified in defending themselves or others. But maybe we should just allow people to punch the shit out of a cop while he is in his patrol car and just run away because the he refused to stop when the cop yells stop. But you know these are good people, their crying mom said so after they get into fights with cops.
 
MutantScalper said:
Another interestingly similar case. Crazy whitey tries to take out a bunch of cops.

http://time.com/5103874/south-carolina-deputies-shot/

You wanna be a cop in USA? Better be prepared to eat some lead.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, if you just want to exist in the USA you need to be prepared to eat some lead at some point in your life. Either in your water pipes, your house paint, or via high speed intracranial injection.
 
Gizmojunk said:
Click to expand...


Ice-T has a lot to say about guns. Yes, he was an 'OG' etc. and was in a gang etc. so yea I suppose he has a gun. I presume most celebrities especially blacks have guns because they don't necessarily have bodyguards etc.

But if you listen to Ice-T's records and read his interviews then his message isn't exactly pro-gun.

"You'll never have justice on stolen land", that's pretty well said. Maybe time to un-steal the land? I think this discussion is mostly about US and US trying to force Europe to become similar gun-shithole that it is.
 
Last edited:
Did you not also watch the second video link? (The ABC 20/20 news segment)

*Especially its interviews with likely (or even confessed) street muggers; and how they target victims, and their opinions of gun laws? I disagree with your assessment of the US.

As for the rapper, he said that he would give up his gun when everyone else did... but that implicitly includes the criminals with guns. It's an old saw, but a true one... If guns are made illegal to the citizens, then only the criminals, and the authorities will have them—making the citizens ever the helpless victim of both.

Does anyone here remember the news item from a few years back about a poor Englishman who found a shotgun on his terrace, concealed in his potted plants? He [dutifully] took it to the police—who promptly arrested him for having touched it. Bonkers; on the level of Monty Python.
 
Last edited:
What you're touching on, is a complex multi layered issue that has not only to do with guns, but also the way how crime is perceived in the US and how the jurisdiction works. Take pot for example, and how criminalized it is in the majority of the US. You can get pretty easily in jail or facing issue with the police. On the other hand, you have a very huge inequality in the US leading also to crime and a culture where you want to 'fuck' shit up.

As I said before, if the US was like Switzerland, they could have easily their cake and eat it too. In other words it could be a gun nation. But right now, the US is a gun nation with almost no middle class anymore. And it's not looking like it's getting any time better. But for some reason, some americans (at least the ones with power ... ) think everything is socialism if it's done to help the poor/low income citizens.
 
Ah... politics; the discussion of which is a consistently reliable way to lose friends & make new enemies.

Still, to mention about the gun's effect for the citizenry, is that town in the US state of Georgia, whose burglary statistics went down just after they mandated that every home owner had to own a gun; for defense.

I knew about that one long before seeing it mentioned the 20/20 segment that I linked; although it is possible that I learned of it by watching that very segment when it first aired.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to even try debating, just smacking a pile of dust of what used to be something organic at this point.

more-dakka.jpg


I like guns, I think people should have the option to be armed, and I'm not afraid to get shot at. (Wouldn't be the first time)

Besides the entire debate is subjective and based on loose concepts of what is or how everything should be. I firmly believe the choice of what to do is up to the individual, however I do not feel any individual has the right to tell me what I can or cannot have.

Come pry 'em from my cold dead hands.
 
Gizmojunk said:
Ah... politics; the discussion of which is a consistently reliable way to lose friends & make new enemies.

Still, to mention about the gun's effect for the citizenry, is that town in the US state of Georgia, whose burglary statistics went down just after they mandated that every home owner had to own a gun; for defense.

I knew about that one long before seeing it mentioned the 20/20 segment that I linked; although it is possible that I learned of it by watching that very segment when it first aired.
Click to expand...
There are also examples where things improved when guns where heavily restricted. Not to mention that almost every western nation has less deaths per capita compared to the US and most of them have stricter gun laws.

Just saying, that game can be played both ways.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Not to mention that almost every western nation has less deaths per capita compared to the US and most of them have stricter gun laws.
Click to expand...
But that might not have anything to do with the gun laws... It could just be cultural. Not every kid with a hammer sees all things as a nail, but some do—and they'd use a rock if they hadn't the hammer. What happens to the kid who is seen as a nail, and doesn't have his own rock?

In the case of that town in Georgia —and I might as well look it up to mention it by name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
The law was apparently passed as the result of a —We'll show'em— reactionary response to another town's mandate of gun prohibition.

*Incidentally, that other town later dropped their ban on handguns.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that thst lovely town on Georgia would stay all nice and friendly if it went into an economic decline :lalala:

Yeah, the US are apparently standing in an alternate dimension occupied by a different subspecies of humans undistinguishable of the rest in first glance, to which no two same rules apply. Gimme a break, that incredible milestone of Dingledorb USA not having much ruckus after the possible criminals being informed that grandma would be packing heat would sure be fantastic if those dastardly lawbreakers didn't just go elsewhere and there wasn't an endemic problem of gun violence in the first place.
 
Gizmojunk said:
But that might not have anything to do with the gun laws... It could just be cultural. Not every kid with a hammer sees all things as a nail, but some do—and they'd use a rock if they hadn't the hammer. What happens to the kid who is seen as a nail, and doesn't have his own rock?

In the case of that town in Georgia —and I might as well look it up to mention it by name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
The law was apparently passed as the result of a —We'll show'em— reactionary response to another town's mandate of gun prohibition.

*Incidentally, that other town later dropped their ban on handguns.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that this issue has many reasons, of which culture is definetly a part of.

However what should make you think a little bit at least, is that the US is often described as a gun-culture. And I am not meaning this in a demeaning manner.

I just wanted to point out, that sometimes people are a bit quick to attribute positive changes to well ... guns, but negative traits are sometimes ignored or explained as something that might not have anything to do with guns or something that's a more complex issue and part of culture etc.

But if we want to have a honest debate, then we have to look at this without any bias, as difficult as it is.
 
Arnust said:
I'm sure that thst lovely town on Georgia would stay all nice and friendly if it went into an economic decline :lalala:
Click to expand...

It probably wouldn't; and all the more reason for the home owners to be armed—to defend their food and other property. Armed thieves are a lot more likely to choose unarmed victims, than armed ones; both in their homes and on the street.

I know of at least one fellow (here) who, while in the midst of being robbed on the street, was able to save his own life (and property) by having a derringer in his wallet. Had he been in a different country (or even a different US state) during this encounter... he would have certainly been robbed, and he might not have lived through it.

There exists a bizarre notion with some, that if society would just provide equally for all, that there would be no [gun] crime in the first place, but this ignores those individuals who would commit crimes for the thrill of it, or to simply do harm. It also ignores those who would accept a parasitical subsistence upon society (as some sort of an owed privilege of being human), and offer nothing in return—save perhaps a vote; or not even that.

People should be allowed to defend themselves in cases where their life is at stake. To be told "No", is to potentially be told to [dutifully] accept injury or death.
 
Last edited:
Uhm, statistically a more equal society IS more safe and stabile ... you can't argue against that. That doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen, even violent crime. So the best way to prevent crime, is to make sure that wealth inequality isn't reaching unreasonable levels.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Uhm, statistically a more equal society IS more safe and stabile ... you can't argue against that. That doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen, even violent crime. So the best way to prevent crime, is to make sure that wealth inequality isn't reaching unreasonable levels.
Click to expand...
Equality is a necessary myth, but for the sake of argument... What happens if not everyone in a given society is interested in doing their fair share for that equality?—but they expect it nonetheless. This could be seen as a subtext of the Aeosop's fable: The Ant & The Grasshopper. *This is also—probably—the general impetus for crime itself.

It's one thing to strive towards equality for all, but it's quite another to be doing it when some of one's neighbor(s) are not the least bit concerned with their own contribution—just those of others. Have you ever heard the term 'crazy money'? Some families in the US will fraudulently have a dependent declared incompetent/(nuts) in order to claim a check from the government. How do you have equality when part of your society will do this?

(There are legitimate families that need this [check] of course, but there is money in it... and so inevitably someone asks, "Well how do I get a check like that?")

When somebody decides that they want nice things, but they don't want to afford those nice things... they may go looking to take someone else's nice things; and when they do, they often come with a weapon—whether it's legal or not. If the law states that one cannot posses a weapon, then what is the expected recourse for those who are threated with illegal weapons?

A person may of course call the police—if they have the chance, and the police will come out to interview them (possibly in the hospital), or to photograph their deceased corpse.

Apparently in the US, it has been decided that the police are not obligated to defend the public.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
 
Last edited:
Einhanderc7 said:
I'm not going to even try debating, just smacking a pile of dust of what used to be something organic at this point.

more-dakka.jpg


I like guns, I think people should have the option to be armed, and I'm not afraid to get shot at. (Wouldn't be the first time)

Besides the entire debate is subjective and based on loose concepts of what is or how everything should be. I firmly believe the choice of what to do is up to the individual, however I do not feel any individual has the right to tell me what I can or cannot have.

Come pry 'em from my cold dead hands.
Click to expand...

So you want, like, more shootings in your society? Well here's one, hope it makes you happy and stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42797684
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top