Gun Master Debate

[King Richard]

Let's stop shitting up other threads with gun talk and start/continue the discussion here. Don't act like cunts in here either. If you make a statement support it.

So here we go...

I do not believe people should be allowed to own an M16, despite how much they may 'want' to; in reality there's no reason for it beyond that.

Why do you feel this way? Btw, M16's aren't fully automatic rifles, they have semi-auto and three round burst rates of fire.

Do you really believe that if we get rid of a few types of guns and pass a few minor regulations, that the murder rate is going to skyrocket, or that crime is even going to get worse? The only thing that's going to happen is that less people are going to be slaughtered by the insane. Overall crime rates are not going to be affected by gun control, but that's not why its being proposed - the point is to prevent mass killings, or lessen their occurrence. Instead of focusing on the overall crime rates for other countries, why don't you look at how many mass killings they've had in the past ten years? Here's something to look at:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/

No I don't think the crime rate will increase. But what evidence do you have to support your claim that less people will get slaughtered by the insane if a "few minor regulations" get passed?

While you're working on digging up some evidence to support your claims, here are some actual facts about mass shootings:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

...

 

[UltimateApathy]

I'll just drop these off here for your enjoyment.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Very good argument UA..

The 2nd amendment is about protection. And being able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt.

The media doesnt report it, but guns save innocent lives all the time.
Like the mother that hid with her children and a dude came after them. She was forced to empty her revolver (6 shots) into the guy and he still was able to get away.
Right there is the reason for magazines holding 10+ rounds.
What would have happened if there were two or more guys coming after her family and she would have ran out of bullets on the one guy.
She and her innocent kids could have been killed.
It's about protection! Wake up protectionist liberals!

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away"

 

[King Richard]

I put UA on my ignore list. Everyone should just start reporting his posts so Deron bans him, fucking useless trolls.

 

[UltimateApathy]

"Why, yes, of course I should have a right to carry a killing machine my pocket, isn't that a natural and obvious universal human belief? Duhhhh"

That's true, who needs NRA-sponsored statistics and studies when you can just use rational logic and common sense. Now if you will excuse me, I'm off to read a very factual document full of statistics published by the Chinese government about what a wonderful thing communism is.

 

[Dak]

It's probably Summerian, the posts are pretty similar.

I'm sure the US and UK crime statistics are NRA sponsored.

 

[Mort Divine]

Very good argument UA..

The 2nd amendment is about protection. And being able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt.

That depends on interpretation of it. It depends on if it is viewed to be based on individual rights or collective rights - and I'm more likely to side with the idea of it referring to the latter rather than the former.

Organized, regulated, civilian militias (or since we don't really have traditional militias nowadays things like the Reserves or National Guard which are the closest thing in spirit to those traditional militias) have the right to arms

Not the average Joe

THAT SAID, I do think people should be allowed to own guns, I have no issue with gun ownership. Just not fine with the average citizen owning anything beyond a hunting rifle, shotgun, or small handgun.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Statistics are a wonderful thing indeed. They might even tell you something like: the more guns there are in a society, the more likely it is that some crazy person is gonna get there hands on one and go shoot a bunch of people for the hell of it. They would also tell you something like: if there are no guns (or very few) in a society, then there is no need to own one for protection (pepper-spray and other non-lethal stuff FTW). Wait, that's just logical rational common sense, right? I forget, people who get brainwashed by the manifestos of political organizations don't do very well at that kinda icky stuff.

 

[Draehl]

Defense of your home wasn't even the intent behind it. It's the ability to stand up to and overthrow your government should the need arise. We may scoff at that idea because while our current government is certainly dysfunctional, it's not in need of being overthrown. And let us hope this never becomes a need. But our founding fathers just got finished casting aside an oppressive regime. It was a very real possibility for them then, which is why it was implemented and we can't let that right slowly be eroded.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Defense of your home wasn't even the intent behind it. It's the ability to stand up to and overthrow your government should the need arise. We may scoff at that idea because while our current government is certainly dysfunctional, it's not in need of being overthrown. And let us hope this never becomes a need. But our founding fathers just got finished casting aside an oppressive regime. It was a very real possibility for them then, which is why it was implemented and we can't let that right slowly be eroded.

In other words, it's an outdated and antiquated belief that has no relevance to modern society. Should we still be torturing people in iron maidens and burning witches at the stake too?

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

I put UA on my ignore list. Everyone should just start reporting his posts so Deron bans him, fucking useless trolls.

You're right, im ignoring this tard too. destroys all the threads he's apart of.

Well said, Draele

 

[Dak]

In other words, it's an outdated and antiquated belief that has no relevance to modern society. Should we still be torturing people in iron maidens and burning witches at the stake too?

Oh, soooo outdated. Because 1950s/60s/70s were ancient history. Besides, this is MURKA right? Where the government is perfect and would never do anything bad. Not like those other nasty government in other places.

 

[Draehl]

In other words, it's an outdated and antiquated belief that has no relevance to modern society. Should we still be torturing people in iron maidens and burning witches at the stake too?

Its' not a need right now, you are very much correct. But look at all the countries around the world currently, or in just the past few decades, that have an oppressive government. Are you saying it is out of the realm of possibility that the same could not happen to America? I'm not one who believes that America is some sort of special country, above all others and immune to the same problems. If it happens to one it can happen to another. When you disarm your populace you only increase the likelihood of this happening.

 

[UltimateApathy]

I cry like a little girl when people don't agree with me

Yes, you do.

 

[Dak]

Just not fine with the average citizen owning anything beyond a hunting rifle, shotgun, or small handgun.

What is a "small handgun"? What is a "hunting rifle"? Shotguns have more destructive firepower than nearly any other sort of firearm. It's statements like these that lead those who are quite familiar with guns to dismiss anti gun rhetoric and charge paranoia based on a lack of knowledge about the subject, no different than the paranoia over Muslims and other brown people in foreign countries. Uncertainty and fear of the unknown creates irrational and uneducated paranoia.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Oh, soooo outdated. Because 1950s/60s/70s were ancient history. Besides, this is MURKA right? Where the government is perfect and would never do anything bad. Not like those other nasty government in other places.

I've come to realize that you're right and I'm wrong. I'll apologize because I've come to see the error of my ways. I now fully and truly believe that any one of these days the American government is going to suddenly transform into a tyrannical despotical authoritarian dictatorship that is going to enslave the masses and send dissidents to work in concentration camps. Naturally, that is precisely the moment when those heroical knights in shining armour, the glamorous gun owners of America, are going to ride on wings of death and glory into the conquest of the White House and save the day, restoring marvelous freedom and liberty to all. Gosh, why didn't I believe any of this amazing truth before?

 

[Draehl]

I've come to realize that you're right and I'm wrong. I'll apologize because I've come to see the error of my ways. I now fully and truly that any one of these days the American government is going to suddenly transform into a tyrannical despotical authoritarian dictatorship that is going to enslave the masses and send dissidents to work in concentration camps. Naturally, that is precisely the moment when those heroical knights in shining armour, the glamorous gun owners of America, are going to ride on wings of death and glory into the conquest of the White House and save the day, restoring marvelous freedom and liberty to all. Gosh, why didn't I believe any of this amazing truth before?

Suddenly, no. If it were to happen it would be something over the course of at least a decade. If you turn on the population at once you'd have a widespread rebellion of such a large portion of the population they would have no chance of stopping. It will be a slow erosion of rights that we go along with, all under the guise of "for our own good" likely in response to some sort of terrorist type of attack or some other terrible event. Only after we have curfews, a semblance of indoctrination, the weapons are taken away, etc. does the true oppression begin. Why? Because at that point they can, without repercussion.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Suddenly, no. If it were to happen it would be something over the course of at least a decade. If you turn on the population at once you'd have a widespread rebellion of such a large portion of the population they would have no chance of stopping. It will be a slow erosion of rights that we go along with, all under the guise of "for our own good" likely in response to some sort of terrorist type of attack or some other terrible event. Only after we have curfews, a semblance of indoctrination, the weapons are taken away, etc. does the true oppression begin. Why? Because at that point they can, without repercussion.

You do know that the U.S. government has tanks, missile launchers, battleships, stealth bomber jets, attack helicopters, nuclear weapons, and bigger guns than a civillian could ever hope to own, right? If the government truly wanted to impose oppression on the people it wouldn't matter whether people are armed or not: the dinky little guns that some small-minded people get such a kick out of owning and firing would be as laughable and useful as a pink toy gun in that kind of situation. I love a good conspiracy theory when it has decent evidence to support it, but this one is sorely lacking, and in the meanwhile people keep getting killed, maimed, and injured by gun accidents and psycopaths with guns.

 

[Mort Divine]

What is a "small handgun"? What is a "hunting rifle"? Shotguns have more destructive firepower than nearly any other sort of firearm. It's statements like these that lead those who are quite familiar with guns to dismiss anti gun rhetoric and charge paranoia based on a lack of knowledge about the subject, no different than the paranoia over Muslims and other brown people in foreign countries. Uncertainty and fear of the unknown creates irrational and uneducated paranoia.

I don't know enough about calibers to go into further detail, but a handgun that has sufficient stopping power without being something that can tear someones insides to pieces, a rifle that will be sufficient for what game the person is licensed to hunt?

The issue I've got mostly lies with the fact that many people are 'OH I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE BAD GUYS BY KILLING THEM' types. Taking another's life is not something anyone should be willing to do so readily - and it isn't as if these people are rare. It is why I am an advocate of non-lethal self-defense weaponry.

 

[Mort Divine]

You do know that the U.S. government has tanks, missile launchers, battleships, stealth bomber jets, attack helicopters, nuclear weapons, and bigger guns than a civillian could ever hope to own, right? If the government truly wanted to impose oppression on the people it wouldn't matter whether people are armed or not: the dinky little guns that some small-minded people get such a kick out of owning and firing would be as laughable and useful as a pink toy gun in that kind of situation. I love a good conspiracy theory when it has decent evidence to support it, but this one is sorely lacking, and in the meanwhile people keep getting killed, maimed, and injured by gun accidents and psycopaths with guns.

This assumes that our military would voluntarily march upon its own citizens.