Gun Master Debate

[Satanstoenail]

I'm glad there's a thread for this retarded shit now. I have a look every now and then, chuckle to myself and get the hell out.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

What is "it", and to what statistics do you refer? If you mean reduced gun homicides in Western Europe vs the USA, then you're just repeating exactly what I said. However, both sides rationalize losses. You rationalize those killed because they lacked the ability to defend themselves, on the basis that innocent deaths will be "removed".

Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Brunei, the UAE, etc all have lower homicide rates than the USA. Extremely harsh penalties combined with strong moral enforcement (whether religious or secular) can be effective in reducing many forms of crime. If we went into the ghettos, cleaned house, and then suppressed any political resistance, I have little doubt that we could successfully curb murder, gun flow, narcotics flow, or whatever we set our mind to. But even if we somehow accomplished that with, say, 10% collateral death, that would not be worth it to someone that avoids a utilitarian belief system with regards to human death.

 

[UltimateApathy]

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



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.

Not "prohibition" so much as "control". If you study such things, you will see that there are not many countries that entirely ban firearms for any reason whatsoever, but there ARE many countries that have very stringent requirements in order to be able to purchase guns, such as providing specific documentation regarding exactly why you need a gun - a simple "I want a gun for self-defense" simply won't be sufficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

For example, hunting is a recognized "sport" in the U.S. and it would be acceptable and reasonable to allow hunters to buy/keep guns if they have a valid hunting license for the current year, no crmininal record, and are required to attend regular (maybe once a year) psychological evalutions and gun safety classes. Furthermore, hunting rifles are very cumbersome and dificult to commit crimes with ranging from killing sprees to simple stick-ups compared to assualt rifles or handguns, so there would not be any significant danger even if criminals were able to somehow get hunting rifles.

Tighter regulation of who can buy guns and for what reasons reduces the amount of guns in a society, makes the existing guns easier to track and monitor, and thus also decreases the amount of guns in criminal and psychotic hands (simple math). The U.S. needs laws such as these to end the senseless slaughter and general wave of gun-based crime.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I honestly don't give a fuck about hunters. The average hunting rifle may be more cumbersome than the average "assault rifle", but they're still perfectly capable of killing people, unless you're inventing an unusual and arbitrary definition for hunting rifles. Killing innocent animals is a legitimate argument in favor of firearm permittance for you, but killing in self-defense isn't?

 

[EffigyForgotten]

I can assure you my dads BAR will blow your fucking head off

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ok.

 

[Dak]

I honestly don't give a fuck about hunters. The average hunting rifle may be more cumbersome than the average "assault rifle", but they're still perfectly capable of killing people, unless you're inventing an unusual and arbitrary definition for hunting rifles. Killing innocent animals is a legitimate argument in favor of firearm permittance for you, but killing in self-defense isn't?

It's all arbitrary bullshit, otherwise they wouldn't have to just yell over you to make a point. Your point here is "on target".

 

[Summerian]

Krow is a cunt.

And Overwash is on his period caus he hasen't gotten to kill anyone in a while.

You all need to lose your guns and start meditating on the important things.

 

[King Richard]

Actually, I think you and UA need to be shot for being cunts (what irony that would be amirite?). And no I'm not kidding. You two are just fucking dumb and are like a disease, spreading your idiocy all over the place and infecting others. Just go away, for ever and ever.

I'll probably get banned for that comment but I don't care.

 

[Summerian]

YOU'RE DUMB King Richard!!

 

[UltimateApathy]

I honestly don't give a fuck about hunters. The average hunting rifle may be more cumbersome than the average "assault rifle", but they're still perfectly capable of killing people, unless you're inventing an unusual and arbitrary definition for hunting rifles. Killing innocent animals is a legitimate argument in favor of firearm permittance for you, but killing in self-defense isn't?

Youy're just randomly spewing out nonsense here to support your irrational beliefs that have been pounded into you by propaganda. For one thing, if you go through all the procedures I mentioned then 99% of people that get hunting rifles will in fact be hunters. Furthermore, hunting rifles are largely innacurate and mostly useless at short range, which is how most gun crime occurs, and they also fire only a single shot at a time. You can't hide a hunting rifle in your coat or in your pocket or your pants before you commit a crime like you can with smaller guns -when was the last time you heard of ANYONE committing a crime with a hunting rifle? It's very, very uncommon.

You're not seriously suggesting that people walk around carrying assualt rifles for self-defence, are you? I'd love to see you try it and see how that works out for you, lol. :Smug: Personally I think hunting for pleasure (not survival) is abominable, but as long as it is legal, hunters should have a right to keep hunting rifles. Also, you wouldn't need to kill anyone in self-defence if the only civilians in a society who have guns are hunters - a good pepperspray or other non-lethal means would do the trick just fine.

 

[UltimateApathy]

 

[UltimateApathy]

So typical of the "head in the sand" act that I was referring to earlier in this topic. Those brainweashed by irrational political or religious beliefs tend to cling to whatever "evidence" there is to support their beliefs, no matter how far-fetched or illogical it is, and when reason and common sense back them into a corner, they simply look the other way rather than face the bitter truth. Ignorance is bliss for so many millions of helplessly-brainwashed people out there.

 

[Dak]

Furthermore, hunting rifles are largely innacurate and mostly useless at short range, which is how most gun crime occurs, and they also fire only a single shot at a time.

Hey, no yelling. You can do this. Anyway, this is completely and absurdly wrong. Rifles are far more accurate than any handgun.

All firearms only shoot a single shot at a time (unless you have something eccentric like a double barrel shotgun). If you mean a single shot per trigger pull, all legal firearms do this. In other words, this whole statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't hide a hunting rifle in your coat or in your pocket or your pants before you commit a crime like you can with smaller guns -when was the last time you heard of ANYONE committing a crime with a hunting rifle? It's very, very uncommon.

I mentioned earlier that homicides by rifle are extremely uncommon. Less than with bare hands or knives or bats. But there isn't a separate category for "hunting rifle" vs "assault rifle". It's all grouped together as "rifles" or "long guns". Take it up with the FBI. So if all rifle homicides combined indicate a lesser threat than baseball bats, and "assault rifles" are a subsection too miniscule to mention, what absurd leaps of imagination did it take for you to start yelling about the mass carnage they inflict on society? Hiding a "hunting rifle" is every bit as difficult as hiding an "assault rifle". So difficulty in concealment is a disadvantage to both defensive and aggressive purposes. So, going back to your unsubstantiated rhetoric on the murderous social impact of "assault rifles": You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

 

[matt schrauben]

Youy're just randomly spewing out nonsense here to support your irrational beliefs that have been pounded into you by propaganda.

You are the absolute last person who should be accusing anyone of "spewing out nonsense here to support your irrational beliefs".

In order for beliefs to be rational, they need to be grounded in verifiable, proven facts. Every post you’ve made in this entire thread has been nothing but a complete regurgitation of anti-gun propaganda. You haven’t backed up one claim you have made, and a couple of different posters have refuted your claims in their posts with actual facts proving your points to be nothing more than hokum. Yet you persist with the same tired arguments that hold no water, and clearly aren’t well versed on the subject at hand. You are doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result. Not exactly rational behavior now is it?

I assume you will respond to this post claiming your superior logical thinking, claim that I’m brainwashed by propaganda because I don’t agree with you, and make more unsustained claims. Then you’ll sit back and bask in your ‘logical thinking’ even though you lack the basic skills to effectively participate in an actual debate.

Don’t pat yourself on the back too hard.

 

[Summerian]

However, both sides rationalize losses. You rationalize those killed because they lacked the ability to defend themselves, on the basis that innocent deaths will be "removed".

I disagree. The so called "left" have no patience or tolerance to any civilian deaths. You'll see that in Europe if gun violence goes up. All form of gun ownership for civilians vill be made illegal. If it takes people having to get a permit to own a knife then that's what will be done. 0 tolerance level.
The nutty right in USA don't care about anything but themselves. The gun owner thing in USA, is an ego thing.

Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Brunei, the UAE, etc all have lower homicide rates than the USA. Extremely harsh penalties combined with strong moral enforcement (whether religious or secular) can be effective in reducing many forms of crime. If we went into the ghettos, cleaned house, and then suppressed any political resistance, I have little doubt that we could successfully curb murder, gun flow, narcotics flow, or whatever we set our mind to. But even if we somehow accomplished that with, say, 10% collateral death, that would not be worth it to someone that avoids a utilitarian belief system with regards to human death.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Brunei are horrible totalitarian staten and have nothing to do with the right to walk the streets of a city in a free society and not get a gun shoved in the face.

If we went into the ghettos, cleaned house, and then suppressed any political resistance, I have little doubt that we could successfully curb murder, gun flow, narcotics flow, or whatever we set our mind to. But even if we somehow accomplished that with, say, 10% collateral death, that would not be worth it to someone that avoids a utilitarian belief system with regards to human death.

Leave ghettos out of this. We don't need to bring in USA:s social nightmare into this.
And I'd like to see you prove that - people wouldn't comply if turning in guns was democratically voted on.
But that wouldn't happen. - Just an NRA wet dream.
Most americans follow the law, even if they don't like it.
The US Constitution, US suprime court and all other power has to bend to the will of the people.
The question is - just how many must die before americans "get it"
Right now it's - Gun nut ego > value of human life.
So as an enlightened human I have to ask myself - is USA a civilized society?
I wonder just how many americans are watching the shootings on TV and thinking of it as entertainment.
Like Romes colosseum...

 

[Summerian]

So typical of the "head in the sand" act that I was referring to earlier in this topic.

And Krow posted that like it was some kind of punishment.

Dumbasses

 

[Dak]

And yet the fact that violent crime of every type has been trending down, inverse to the rise in gun purchases, continues to be ignored.

Right now it's - Gun hater ego > Facts.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Hey, no yelling. You can do this. Anyway, this is completely and absurdly wrong. Rifles are far more accurate than any handgun.

All firearms only shoot a single shot at a time (unless you have something eccentric like a double barrel shotgun). If you mean a single shot per trigger pull, all legal firearms do this. In other words, this whole statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about.




I mentioned earlier that homicides by rifle are extremely uncommon. Less than with bare hands or knives or bats. But there isn't a separate category for "hunting rifle" vs "assault rifle". It's all grouped together as "rifles" or "long guns". Take it up with the FBI. So if all rifle homicides combined indicate a lesser threat than baseball bats, and "assault rifles" are a subsection too miniscule to mention, what absurd leaps of imagination did it take for you to start yelling about the mass carnage they inflict on society? Hiding a "hunting rifle" is every bit as difficult as hiding an "assault rifle". So difficulty in concealment is a disadvantage to both defensive and aggressive purposes. So, going back to your unsubstantiated rhetoric on the murderous social impact of "assault rifles": You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

You were too afraid to reply to my earlier lengthy post but now come groveling back to reply to a much shorter one which doesn't make you look like a total fool? LOL. Oh yeah, and conveniently ignoring most of what I said in that post too, and yet still having the gall to accuse me of having nothing to back-up my claims? Don't make me laugh...

If (as it seems) you would like me to say that hunting should be banned then I would generally say so BUT as someone mentioned in a really whiny tone earlier that hunting is part of American culture and I do believe in cultural preservation as a concept too, and as long as the only people who have guns are in fact hunters (who are relatively rare in society as a whole anyway), then I see no harm in them possessing hunting rifles. Introduce strict requirements to obtain hunting rifles like the ones I mentioned earlier (like the ones that they have in most civilized countries) and the only guns in civilian hands won't be landing in the hands of would-be criminals, and society becomes a lot safer. Or just ban hunting too without any cultural concessions and annoy the hunting crowd, I certainly wouldn't mind.

 

[matt schrauben]

You were too afraid to reply to my earlier lengthy post but now come groveling back to reply to a much shorter one which doesn't make you look like a total fool? LOL.

The length of posts doesn't equal good though or debate. In your case, I'd say quite the contrary.

Oh yeah, and conveniently ignoring most of what I said in that post too, and yet still having the gall to accuse me of having nothing to back-up my claims? Don't make me laugh...

Yet, you still haven't backed up any of your claims...