Guns, guns, guns

[Zaij]

That said, if I had my way- death penalty would be enforced not just against murderers, but also major drug traffickers (we're talking about drug kingpins who make over $50K per year through drug dealing) and corporate thieves guilt of corporate intentional crimes that result in a loss of $1 million or loss of 1000 jobs. I also think those guilty of treason should be shot. Scooter Libby and Carl Rove should be shot for betraying a CIA operative.

What about non-addictive substances? What about non-hard drugs? Marijuanna Legalization is sort of a big topic these days, and I know some dealers that would get more than 50k just from that. What about drugs like Shrooms or LSD which aren't necessarily dangerous; indeed, some (like myself) feel that they're a way to get in touch with other aspects of their minds. These are non-chemically addictive drugs that don't put the same strain on the public health system that hard drugs, as well as tobacco and alcohol do. Further, they don't necessarily support the drug barons/mafia/terrorists (If you read up about LSD, you'll find a bust in 2004 eliminated 95% of the USA's supply - and they were just two hippies making it). Shrooms grow everywhere, as does pot.

Then with the white collar crime: How do you determine how guilty someone is? Intent to defraud/chase that end of year bonus? How can you prove any intent without hamstringing management in paperwork/checks and balances. Results? The vast majority of those affected by the GFC had no part in it. Neither intent nor result can really be proven to a satisfactory degree in a court (excepting a complete idiot/self-representation).

I think a society that allows the death penalty should have the right to watch it, and then judge for themselves whether we should have a death penalty or not.

As you intimate further on, watching something like that should be a responsibility, not a right. If you support the death penalty, you should watch every death that your support, tacit or otherwise perpetrates.

The right to own guns is fine. But we should also protect the right of a person to be able to live in peace and feel no need to own a gun. We should have a right not to live in fear of social violence- be that the result of drive by shooting in a poor urban neighborhood or gunshot from a jealous boyfriend/spouse.

This is why I am against the right to bear arms, bar in rural areas. You do not need a gun in an urban area. Sure, for a few years after/if guns are criminalized in the US violent crime may seem on the rise, but give it 5-10 years after and I reckon you'll see the number drop. When cops see a gun on someone, they'll know that guy isn't allowed to have it. The whole 'standing up against the government if it starts becoming tyrannical' or what have you is bullshit as well. Just look at Nazi Germany.

You want to have assault weapons- fine, but how are you going to keep those guns from getting into dangerous hands if you won't impose sanctions on stray purchasers or limit the ability of gun dealers from selling guns.

Not fine. You don't need a fucking assault rifle either. Guns become toys at this stage. You're frankly a crazy right wing gun nut if you own an Assault rifle.

The common argument is that "bad guys" will always get guns. Maybe, but gun restrictions impose costs on bad guys. Furthermore, those asshole kids at Colombine, or most of the other major shootings we've had over the past few years- where done by people that were not "bad guys" until they started shooting people.

Even small time bad guys won't really have access to guns in this case. And as for School shootings; After the Bryant killings in Tasmania, Australia tightened it's gun control. After Colombine, the NRA held rallies. Clearly there's something fucking wrong here. The right to bear arms is archaic, although pretty much to be expected from a country that's still using Imperial.

 

[Sander]

Okay, seriously, keep the death penalty stuff out of here at least. That is completely beside the point and irrelevant.

This is why I am against the right to bear arms, bar in rural areas. You do not need a gun in an urban area. Sure, for a few years after/if guns are criminalized in the US violent crime may seem on the rise, but give it 5-10 years after and I reckon you'll see the number drop. When cops see a gun on someone, they'll know that guy isn't allowed to have it.

Yes, because people are just walking around brandishing guns.
What the fuck?

Also, instead of making assumptions, try coming up with data that support your statements.
Interestingly, for as far as I know there is no valid, conclusive evidence that links gun control laws and a reduction in any kind of crime or death.

There is also no valid, conclusive data that supports the idea that gun possessions reduce violent crime, by the way. All research is very tainted and suspect, as it is very hard to research the data on gun control itself. There are no good situations where you can judge equivalent groups with different gun control levels and no complicating secondary problems.

The whole 'standing up against the government if it starts becoming tyrannical' or what have you is bullshit as well. Just look at Nazi Germany.

How in all the holy hells is this a relevant or even logical comparison? Dammit, people, just trying to throw in Nazi Germany everywhere is not a valid way of presenting an argument.

Also, Nazi Germany was pretty strict on gun control.

Not fine. You don't need a fucking assault rifle either. Guns become toys at this stage. You're frankly a crazy right wing gun nut if you own an Assault rifle.

Or, you're someone who has a hobby that involves guns. It is not crazier or nuttier than collecting stamps.

Even small time bad guys won't really have access to guns in this case. And as for School shootings; After the Bryant killings in Tasmania, Australia tightened it's gun control. After Colombine, the NRA held rallies. Clearly there's something fucking wrong here. The right to bear arms is archaic, although pretty much to be expected from a country that's still using Imperial.

Please stop listening to Michael Moore, thank you.

All you're doing in this post is trying to vilify America as an institution by calling it names and trying to draw stupid associations.

 

[Zaij]

Yes, because people are just walking around brandishing guns.
What the fuck?

Also, instead of making assumptions, try coming up with data that support your statements.
Interestingly, for as far as I know there is no valid, conclusive evidence that links gun control laws and a reduction in any kind of crime or death.

I know this game. It's called run around the internet/public library looking for statistics where you can just find another pair that will 'disprove it'. I don't want to play.

How in all the holy hells is this a relevant or even logical comparison? Dammit, people, just trying to throw in Nazi Germany everywhere is not a valid way of presenting an argument.

Also, Nazi Germany was pretty strict on gun control.

Circumstances may have been different, but you don't think that the US could descend slowly into tyranny while every other yobbo sits on his couch watching Springer and eating Freedom Fries? You see videos all over youtube of police trashing reporters rights and so on. Obama is around yeah, but the groundwork has been laid for those conservative types when they inevitably get back into power

Or, you're someone who has a hobby that involves guns. It is not crazier or nuttier than collecting stamps.

Yes, because Assault Rifles are toys. Tell me, are you going to start 'collecting' chemical weapons now as well? It is not crazier or nuttier than collecting stamps.

Please stop listening to Michael Moore, thank you.

All you're doing in this post is trying to vilify America as an institution by calling it names and trying to draw stupid associations.

Of course, that's exactly what I'm doing. Well done you for sussing that out.

 

[Sander]

I know this game. It's called run around the internet/public library looking for statistics where you can just find another pair that will 'disprove it'. I don't want to play.

No, it's a game called 'substantiating your claims' instead of a game of 'I'm shouting louder I'm right!'

Circumstances may have been different, but you don't think that the US could descend slowly into tyranny while every other yobbo sits on his couch watching Springer and eating Freedom Fries? You see videos all over youtube of police trashing reporters rights and so on. Obama is around yeah, but the groundwork has been laid for those conservative types when they inevitably get back into power

The right to bear arms does not guarantee preventing a tyranny, but it is there to at least improve the odds of the populace being able to do something.

Also, paranoid much?

Yes, because Assault Rifles are toys. Tell me, are you going to start 'collecting' chemical weapons now as well? It is not crazier or nuttier than collecting stamps.

That's a neat straw man, pal. As, see, chemical weapons are clearly illegal and cannot possibly be used for anything recreational. Unlike assault rifles, which can be and are used for recreational shooting.

Of course, that's exactly what I'm doing. Well done you for sussing that out.

Trying to draw direct comparisons with Nazi Germany and throwing in snide remarks at the USA being an archaic country is indeed that. As is going 'zomg they held NRA rallies after COlumbine, that is wrong!', even though, actually, the NRA did no such thing directly after Columbine and offered to cancel it's rally that had been planned for months before. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is filled with twisted facts and manipulative editing. The Truth about Bowling website has a pretty comprehensive list of its nonsense up.

Also, trying to dismiss my arguments by ignoring them and inserting smilies does not work.

Again:

Please provide anything that substantiates a link between violent crime, death rates, murder, or anything else and a lack of gun control if you are going to state that there is a link. Simply claiming so does not make it true.

Failing that, try to make an argument that does not involve trying to demean what you are railing against by throwing in completely irrelevant asides as to its idiocy. Unlike what you believe, going 'Springer! Freedom Fries! Imperial units!' only makes your argument look more stupid.

If this goes on for much longer, I'm just splitting the discussion by the way.

 

[Zaij]

No, it's a game called 'substantiating your claims' instead of a game of 'I'm shouting louder I'm right!'

Uh huh, because I'm the one that's being the loud arsehole here.

Also, paranoid much?

Yeah, that's right. I'm paranoid because I don't think what we have will last.

That's a neat straw man, pal. As, see, chemical weapons are clearly illegal and cannot possibly be used for anything recreational. Unlike assault rifles, which can be and are used for recreational shooting.

Funnily enough, assault rifles ARE clearly illegal weapons in Australia. It was indeed a pretty neat straw man, wasn't it? The vast majority of Australians consider other weapons enough for 'recreational shooting', you don't need to go overboard to do that.

Trying to draw direct comparisons with Nazi Germany

Christ mate, what I was writing would apply to pretty much every western country. We're a docile bunch. Stop taking everything as a damn attack on the US.

and throwing in snide remarks at the USA being an archaic country

I think that the right to bear arms and imperial are horribly archaic. Many others would agree, especially considering the fact that so many of you do see it as a damn RIGHT and only trotting out the responsibility line when you're scared someone is going to take your shiny toys away from you.

As is going 'zomg they held NRA rallies after COlumbine, that is wrong!', even though, actually, the NRA did no such thing directly after Columbine and offered to cancel it's rally that had been planned for months before. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is filled with twisted facts and manipulative editing. The Truth about Bowling website has a pretty comprehensive list of its nonsense up.

Well, I've never watching bowling for columbine (perhaps you're the one that should stop making assumptions, ey?), but it sure is lovely to be educated otherwise in respect to the NRA rallies.

Also, trying to dismiss my arguments by ignoring them and inserting smilies does not work.

My apologies, I generally don't feel the need to respond to something I see as irrelevant. I can point out every little irrelevant thing you post in the future if you like.

Again:

Please provide anything that substantiates a link between violent crime, death rates, murder, or anything else and a lack of gun control if you are going to state that there is a link. Simply claiming so does not make it true.

Again, statistics and research can be used to prove and disprove everything, I value my time too much to run around collecting useless statistics, and I respect yours too much to expect you to do the same.

Failing that, try to make an argument that does not involve trying to demean what you are railing against by throwing in completely irrelevant asides as to its idiocy. Unlike what you believe, going 'Springer! Freedom Fries! Imperial units!' only makes your argument look more stupid.

Springer! Freedom Fries! was merely me tying it into American culture. As I said earlier, the exact same thing would apply to Australia in which case I'd be screaming AFL! Four'n'Twenty Pies!

Edit

And let me make this crystal clear, what I was writing was never an attack on America, only on your so called right to bear arms.

 

[Sander]

Uh huh, because I'm the one that's being the loud arsehole here.

Which is not what I said either.
Could you perhaps attempt to present a coherent argument instead of constantly twisting my words and ignoring the points?

I'll reiterate: present proof or retract your statements.

Yeah, that's right. I'm paranoid because I don't think what we have will last.

And more twisting of words.
You're treading the line close to trolling here.

Also, I was calling you paranoid not because you were open to the possibility of an authoritarian regime emerging at some point (although it is unlikely in the US given its cultural background), but because you implied that the next time the 'conservative types' get to power, that will happen.

Funnily enough, assault rifles ARE clearly illegal weapons in Australia. It was indeed a pretty neat straw man, wasn't it? The vast majority of Australians consider other weapons enough for 'recreational shooting', you don't need to go overboard to do that.

Most of this thread and the conversation at hand has been about American gun laws, not Australian ones.
In addition to that, chemical weapons are obviously a lot of steps higher and *universally* illegal. They also have no recreational uses.

And no, the fact that Australians consider other weapons adequate for recreational shooting does not mean that they are adequate.

Also, assault rifles are useless in a practical setting for crime anyway, so your point that they are more dangerous is hardly valid anyway.

Christ mate, what I was writing would apply to pretty much every western country. We're a docile bunch. Stop taking everything as a damn attack on the US.

We were talking about the right to bear arms in the constitution of the US. How do I then not apply your remarks to the US?

I think that the right to bear arms and imperial are horribly archaic.

And completely unrelated to eachother.
Yet again: what you did was paint a negative picture of a country and associate that with gun control. It is a neat, but stupid tactic.

Many others would agree, especially considering the fact that so many of you do see it as a damn RIGHT and only trotting out the responsibility line when you're scared someone is going to take your shiny toys away from you.

I do not care for guns, have never used one, don't own and I am not American, and also none of your statements here are arguments for the statement that the right to bear arms is archaic.

Well, I've never watching bowling for columbine (perhaps you're the one that should stop making assumptions, ey?), but it sure is lovely to be educated otherwise in respect to the NRA rallies.

The argument that the NRA held a rally after Columbine and that that was evil is portrayed exactly like that in Bowling for Columbine.
It is an argument based entirely on fiction.

My apologies, I generally don't feel the need to respond to something I see as irrelevant. I can point out every little irrelevant thing you post in the future if you like.

And again: pretending arguments are irrelevant does not make them so.

Again, statistics and research can be used to prove and disprove everything, I value my time too much to run around collecting useless statistics, and I respect yours too much to expect you to do the same.

I love how that statistics line is always trotted out when someone cannot provide adequate proofs.
No, properly applied statistics cannot prove or disprove everything, they are a tool and a means of proof if you know how to use them.

If you do not want to substantiate your claims that is fine. But then do not pretend that they are hard truth when you have no reasons whatsoever to believe so.

Springer! Freedom Fries! was merely me tying it into American culture. As I said earlier, the exact same thing would apply to Australia in which case I'd be screaming AFL! Four'n'Twenty Pies!

Except that you didn't. By doing what you did you degraded your own argument by going for the cheap, low blow of tying a single policy into an entire culture, and then demeaning that culture thus by association demeaning that policy.

Edit

And let me make this crystal clear, what I was writing was never an attack on America, only on your so called right to bear arms.

It is not my right.

 

[TheGM]

Well guns are part of us Culturally. This Country was made with the gun. From The English Settlers that used them to hunt and blow away the occasional pissed off Indian. To those very English Settlers that blew away other Englishmen to get their freedom. All West ward expansion was made by men with guns. they hunted with guns. Hell most rural places here 60 years ago Gun were needed to protect your food.....To even get food. Remember it is a big place.

Now people keep talking about crimes with Guns. Now places without guns or it is a pain the ass to get one still have crime. It is just that they use something else. wether it be a knife, or in the UK and AUS......A pitchfork. Hell I've seen a guy in New Zealand use a machete.

Hey I'm pretty sure Swords killed way more people then guns. Lets ban those Braveheart commemorable Swords you can buy off the TV. I'm sure Bows and Arrows killed a shit load. Lets ban them as well, sure It might make Ted Nugent mad......Fuck him. He can go shopping for food like the rest of us Normal 21st Century people.

And all that was bull shit. Fact is people have been killing eachother since we stained this planet with our presence so who cares if was it a rock, Sharpened Iron, a Projectile fire from a barrel, or Accelerated Atoms. It is not what we do it with...But why we do it. That is usually answered with....Well it sounded like a Good idea at the time....My bad.

I'm More worried about being told what I can read, What I can watch, What Websites I visit, and What games I can play. And If you think I'm talking about China....I'm Talking About Australia.

 

[patriot_41]

Good point, GM.
Even if all bows, arrows, knives, swords and pitchforks have been taken, people will invent new ways of killing. This is how the Okinawan villagers perfected the art of punching a hole/kicking one through Samurai Armor and this is also how rice threshers were popularized.

I'm thinking, that if everyone has a gun it would be really difficult to rob a bank at gunpoint. It will be like the story about that guy, who tried to rob a gun store.

 

[Stealste]

Guns make it easier to kill, i would argue. It takes one nervous guy with a gun to cause a lot of hell. It takes serious intent to stab someone, more so if the stab doesn't kill on the first strike. Guns were created because they make it easier to kill things- People, animals, whatever. Killing is never something that should be 'easy'. In regards to the GM's comments, how many indians have you been forced to remove from their land recently? That is what i believe Zajj meant by their use in the US being archaic. And i couldn't agree more with him in regards to assault rifles. They are unneccessary and dangerous and fucking stupid. The mere fact that people would profit of the sale of these weapons makes me sick to my stomach- As he'd said earlier, at least drugs can expand your horizons, etc. Guns just kill. I'd line the fuckwit who decided an assault weapon was a reasonable thing for a person to own against a wall before i decide a multi-million dollar drug dealer's life is forfeit.

Then again, everyones got their own opinion... as long as people think guns are 'good' they aren't going anywhere....

 

[Brother None]

Well guns are part of us Culturally. This Country was made with the gun. From The English Settlers that used them to hunt and blow away the occasional pissed off Indian. To those very English Settlers that blew away other Englishmen to get their freedom. All West ward expansion was made by men with guns. they hunted with guns. Hell most rural places here 60 years ago Gun were needed to protect your food.....To even get food. Remember it is a big place.

Right. Because the US was the only country being expanded in a warlike manner, with guys hunting for guns, not like say Russia and Australia had much the same thing going on. And you think Europe had no guns at this point? Wake up. The gun is not uniquely "cultural" to the US, not by a long shot.

Historical ignorance is the worst of the gun debate. Many Americans don't even seem to realise what the 2nd Amendment is for, instead opting to view it as some kind of "civil liberty"

 

[Sander]

Guns make it easier to kill, i would argue. It takes one nervous guy with a gun to cause a lot of hell. It takes serious intent to stab someone, more so if the stab doesn't kill on the first strike. Guns were created because they make it easier to kill things- People, animals, whatever. Killing is never something that should be 'easy'. In regards to the GM's comments, how many indians have you been forced to remove from their land recently? That is what i believe Zajj meant by their use in the US being archaic. And i couldn't agree more with him in regards to assault rifles. They are unneccessary and dangerous and fucking stupid. The mere fact that people would profit of the sale of these weapons makes me sick to my stomach- As he'd said earlier, at least drugs can expand your horizons, etc. Guns just kill. I'd line the fuckwit who decided an assault weapon was a reasonable thing for a person to own against a wall before i decide a multi-million dollar drug dealer's life is forfeit.

Assault rifles are only more dangerous because of association. There is no logical reason to feel that assault rifles are inherently insanely dangerous.

 

[TheWesDude]

BN, his point wasnt that guns are uniqely american, its just that its a part of US culture. and it is.


hell, any documentary moore puts out is not going to be anywhere near the truth. same with inconvienint truth... neither are correct. anything moore does is made for entertainment. anyone who takes moore or gore seriously on these fronts is an idiot.


and the US having so many guns and it being so common to have guns around helps your average citizen more than you would think. even those who hate guns.

 

[Sander]

BN, his point wasnt that guns are uniqely american, its just that its a part of US culture. and it is.


hell, any documentary moore puts out is not going to be anywhere near the truth. same with inconvienint truth... neither are correct. anything moore does is made for entertainment. anyone who takes moore or gore seriously on these fronts is an idiot.


and the US having so many guns and it being so common to have guns around helps your average citizen more than you would think. even those who hate guns.

How so then? There's no proof whatsoever that it helps deter crime.

 

[Zaij]

Fuck Sander, you're just arguing without a point at this stage. Stop being so contradictory. If you don't have a point, don't bother getting involved because all you're doing is sending people on searches for factoids to appease your need to argue.

 

[Sander]

Fuck Sander, you're just arguing without a point at this stage. Stop being so contradictory. If you don't have a point, don't bother getting involved because all you're doing is sending people on searches for factoids to appease your need to argue.

No, what I am trying to do is to get people out of the rut that is dogmatic thinking.
Almost everyone starts out on either side of the gun debate, and then they go out and try to find evidence that supports their cause. This happens with everything, but it is particularly rampant when it comes to gun legislation, especially so because people very quickly go to emotional testimonies. The lack of any kind of objectivity and factual basis destroys any merit the issue has.

I also hate faulty arguments.

The fact that I do not clearly support either side does not mean that I am simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

Personally, I stopped caring about gun legislation. I think it is a side-issue that distracts from much more important criminal and accidental death issues.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Why do gun massacres happen so often at schools? Could it be that schools are "Gun Free" zones?

Lets say your a maniac or maybe just a normal guy who snapped - now you want to go out and slaughter a bunch of innocent people, what would be the perfect location for this? You'd probably want to go to a place where you'd catch people off-guard and where there is minimal to non-existant security - a gun free zone is just icing on the cake.

Upstanding citizens are killed by guns in two ways (for the most part). They are either shot by accident by not knowing the propor way to handle firearms...OR.... they are shot by criminals

I'm of the opinion that the way to reduce these two occurances is to have MORE civilians that are armed. I think the government should institute programs to get willing civilians their concealed carry permit for free.

A potential shooter would think twice about going into a school if he knew every member of the staff was carrying. Also, the CCW course extensively covers firearm mechanics as well as saftety procedures.

Sure I would like to live in a world where there was no threat of gun violence - but lets be serious. That kind of thing is NEVER going to happen. Even if it did - I would still want to carry. An armed assailant is just one of the things that a firearm can protect you from.

 

[Sander]

Most people who massacre are batshit insane and have a deathwish (see the Columbine massacre). The threat of other people with guns does not work as a deterrent, then.

 

[Brother None]

Fuck Sander, you're just arguing without a point at this stage.

Sander is being the Devil's advocate, as he often does.

BN, his point wasnt that guns are uniqely american, its just that its a part of US culture. and it is.

It is about the same way racism is. Or, heck, patriotism. There's plenty of things ingrained in US culture and in other cultures. It's meaningless to state as much, though, it's not a value statement, it's not a statement about something being inevitable or impossible to remove, it's just a statement. What is here today might as well be gone tomorrow, more than one country has shed its gun culture in the past.

hell, any documentary moore puts out is not going to be anywhere near the truth.

Moore is a lying, manipulative sack of shit. No one has stated otherwise, tho', so not sure why you bring it up.

and the US having so many guns and it being so common to have guns around helps your average citizen more than you would think. even those who hate guns.

The other worst thing about the gun debate is this. There's a total lack of facts, because the gun-lobbies are too powerful to allow honest research, so there's no unambiguous statistical data on whether or not guns help or harm US society as a rule.

You can make claims about it until you're blue in the face, but the scientific research of this matter has been poisoned beyond belief.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Most people who massacre are batshit insane and have a deathwish (see the Columbine massacre). The threat of other people with guns does not work as a deterrent, then.

The deterrent is not losing their lives - its losing their lives before they get to take anyone to the grave with them.

Think about it - a massive body count is like the ultimate goal for these sick fuckers - it's the last thing that they give a shit about. They usually have some degree of a plan before they go in gun blazing. Why does the "plan" consist of shooting up a school on so many occasions. There are so many other places that have tons of people; so why schools so much?

 

[Kilus]

So in a school shooting situation you want a pitched gun battle fought by amateurs? That's just going to make the situation more confusing, delay police response and the armed teachers are probably just as likely to shoot normal students and teachers as they would with the shooters.

A CCW course provides no training to deal with a school shooting situation.

Also, false alarm situations would have the potential to turn deadly. Some stupid person not following the lockdown? Must be a shooter, shoot him in the head.