Gun Master Debate

[EffigyForgotten]

The quick guide on how to become a complete asshole.

Step one : Sign up for ultimatemetal.com with only the intention to troll.

Step two : Pick a retarded name, use a question mark as your avatar and put absolutely no information about you on your profile.

Step three : Start trolling music threads.

Step Four : Make people think your not a troll by trying to sound smart by writing long paragraphs but overall still sound like a fucking dumbass.

Step Five : Get seriously mad when someone doesn't like the type of music you like.

Step Six : Call everyone under 20 a kid.

Final Step : Go fuck yourself.

BTW I heard the price for .22 bullets has gone WAY up (I can't remember if that's the exact bullet type) anyone going to sell their bullets?

 

[Dak]

Adam Lanza did not use a AR-15 btw. Was also denied purchase for another rifle. He used handguns.

 

[Summerian]

A lot of it comes down to moral beliefs. People that support disarming the civilian populace do so (if they're rational) because they believe there will be a net reduction in homicides as a result. It's the same argument people make to support the death penalty, that a few innocent deaths are an acceptable side effect to a well-checked, low-crime population. In this sense, the left and the far-right Eastern world have a lot in common.

Absurd, totally absurd.
It's stats and irresponsible gun ownership. Not moral beliefs.
You arm the civilian populace in times of war. The natural state in any civilized society is unarmed citizens.
As for bringing the death penalty into this in any way or form is not constructive. The death penalty in used is a result of social climate/norms and ignorance. It aggravates the use of violence.
The whole point of non gun irresponsibility is to remove all innocent deaths possible. It's the pro-gun people doing the death math here - acceptable losses.
Tell us all about your "Eastern world". Too much a generic term.

 

[UltimateApathy]

I agree that open carry greatly reduces your ability to successfully mitigate a situation. So what? Otherwise, your suggestion that a weapon can't possibly be used in self defense is purely uninformed conjecture.
How many times are you going to repeat unsubstantiated claims? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to back up your opinions in this thread. No real life situations, and a single "hearsay" statistic.


The point is that, like I said a million times but your little mind seems to conveniently ignore, is that a gun is far more likely to be used in a crime than in successful self-defense. Now of course they don't actually keep records of how many people manage to use guns successfully in self-defense and most crimes committed with guns are simple "stick ups" that don't actually get recorded as "gun crime" (which also means that any gun crime statistics are also seriously skewed) - a gun cows civillians into fearful resistance far more than any knife or whatever could. So when we don't have any solid reliable statistics about a situation we just need to use our logic and common sense to figure out what is most likely true. If I were tell you that there are more ants than people in the world, would you demand to see statistics to prove it even though it is obviously true? Even in many situations where statistics could be provided the answer if often very clear and obvious - for example, if I were to say that men are more inclined to commit violence than woman, would you really ask to see evidence to support such an obviously true claim? If you try it, I'm sure that you will see that you can correctly determine things with sound logical deductive reasoning when your mind is unpolluted by rightwing redneck propoganda. Things such as:

* the likelihood of a gun being used in a crime as opposed to a successful self-defence
* the very small chance of a successful self-defence with a gun in almost any situation when the criminals are alert and prepared, as they usually are
* the likelihood of the U.S. government becoming a dictatorship and the gun carriers of America waging a successful guerilla war against them (lol, what a joke).
* the "power effect" that guns have on criminals which encourages them to commit crime more brazenly

I could go on and on with these, really...


So why are more people killed with bare hands or bats and knives than rifles of ANY kind? I mean, according to you "big scary guns" are pretty much laying around for anyone to use, and are clearly superior.

Firstly, I'd ask where you are getting your information. If you are referring to the world at large, I would believe it since the vast majority of countries out there don't hand out guns willingly to all in sundry like they do in the U.S. In the USA 65% OF ALL MURDERS are committed by people with guns, according to this chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime

Let me guess: Any statistics I provide will be handwaved, just like every statistic and correlation I have demonstrated so far . Any logic and common sense I provide will be handwaved. Until you stop dismissing everything as "NRA rhetoric" or "not using your brain", more statistics and examples are going to help your religious adherence to your beautiful mind.


You've only provided one set of statistics so far, and I already pointed out how it doesn't even support your case in any way at all. Furthermore, it only recorded actual shootings and made no mentions of the uncounted thousands upon thousands of additional gun-related crimes such as stick-ups etc.

India, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, are just a few of the MANY examples of democratic countries that have very few guns and also very little violent crime. Even non-democratic countries like China and Vietnam have very few guns and very little violent crime. We're talking about vast portions of the Earth's population here, and furthermore Wikipedia also shows that most countries in the world have fewer than 10 guns per every 100 people, but in the U.S.A. people have 88 guns per 100 people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Having a society that awash with guns is not normal or healthy, as is evidenced by the endless string of mass shootings and other gun crime. I've lived in a country that had gun problems almost as severe as the US and I've also lived in a country that basically has no guns, and the difference between the two is absolute night and day in terms of safety and crime levels. You should go out and see the world to decipher the truth rather than relying on propoganda fed to you by political groups with obvious profit incentives.


I was in the military, I'm fairly familiar with military reasons for possessing various weapons systems. However, I've never seen an college military apologetics course, nor a college private firearm apologetics course. Why their nonexistence is somehow relevant I don't know.

I never mentioned anything about "apologetics courses" so don't even bother trying to put words into my mouth. If you study politics or international relations etc you'll be bound to come across some portions about the necessity and role of the military in the modern state. You certainly won't find any such academic information relating to the necessity of civillian gun ownership because there IS NONE, other than N.R.A propoganda.
At least your military background explains your gun obsession and willingness to blindly and heedlessly follow orders from NRA propogandists.

 

[Dak]

When you learn how to pay attention to the words I use, and the definitions of those words, you might become less frustrated. Typing in all caps or all large/bold font indicates shouting. I can't hear anything you say due to your disrespectful discourse. Calm down, mature a little, and try again if you are so inclined.

 

[UltimateApathy]

From the way he talks he's totally cool with allowing the government have complete and utter control and power over us. Because they've proven to be so trustworthy y'know?

By my simply saying that is necessary to have an armed military (without weapons there is no military) and armed police force (a natural occurrence in the vast majority of countries in the world), you somehow deduced this? I'll have some of whatever you're smoking...

 

[Summerian]

*cough*Troll*cough*@Overwatch

 

[UltimateApathy]

You've finally hit me with too many convincing statistics and logical ideas that I've decided to throw in the towel. At least I tried my best while it lasted.

There's that "head in the sand" ostrich act that I was referring to earlier in this topic. Logic and reason always win out against blind allegiance to political or religious beliefs.

 

[Summerian]

 

[UltimateApathy]

This is just priceless, LOL

 

[Summerian]

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Yes .22 ammo has gone way up
I'm about to buy a .22 pistol. Probably a Ruger 22/45
I already have a Ruger 10/22 and just need a pistol to go with it.

 

[Summerian]

 

[Summerian]

And the last one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

 

[Dak]

I didn't know yelling = superior logic. Let me give it a try

LOOK - WHATEVER I'M TYPING IN THIS FORMAT IS A PRIORI LOGICAL: I WIN TEH INTERNETZ AND YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID

 

[matt schrauben]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment#cite_note-scotus1-1

The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia

Sources:

Pollock, Earl (2008). The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Greenwood. p. 423. ISBN 978-0-313-36525-6.

"held that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms,"Scaros, Constantinos E. (2010). Understanding the Constitution. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 484. ISBN 978-0-7637-5811-0.

I don't know how one can argue in support of a ban on all guns by the U.S governemnt, when the constitution and our highest court explicity have stated that it is the right of the citizens to be able to carry and acquire firearms. If you don't like it, fine, but you are arguing for something the governement, as explicitly stated in our Constitution and Courts, cannot do.

 

[Dak]

Whatever dude, Supreme Court decisions are just NRA propaganda. They posted a jpeg that says otherwise. I think what's right is self evident. The beautiful mind has spoken.

 

[matt schrauben]

Whatever dude, Supreme Court decisions are just NRA propaganda. They posted a jpeg that says otherwise. I think what's right is self evident. The beautiful mind has spoken.

Nice dude.

 

[Krow]

 

[EffigyForgotten]

What would happen if our country had no guns? We wouldn't fucking exist.