97 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

Oh for Pete's sake, is someone trying to compare Europe to America AGAIN???

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 02 October 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

If guns were banned people the majority of all school shootings would be ended, many domestic murders wouldn't happen, cop shooters wouldn't have guns (well not easily), etc.

That and why the **** do American populace need all these guns anyways? Hunting maybe, but half the population doesn't hunt. Why do they need assault rifles? No need whatsoever for those.

Frankly I don't see why so many Americans need all these guns. The second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says REGULATED and also does not even say what "arms" are. That and every state does have a militia. Its called the National Guard, which is controlled by the state. They can't be mobilized without the State's permission.

Please see:

Heller v. DC
then McDonald v. Chicago.

and more recently on the topic of what are arms please see:
Caetano v. Massachusetts.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 12 October 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Fbi stats disagree. Most are committed with guns 64% or so actually. Mostly handguns.

The FBI stats are for homicide. That includes justifiable homicide, such as police shootings and private citizens acting in legal self-defense.
In other words, those statistics are misleading when brought up in context of CRIME committed with firearms.
You are universally correct though in that most shootings, criminal or not tend to involve handguns over any form of long gun.

[Quinn Allard]

It really doesn't matter what your opinion is. I have a Constitutional right as an American to own and use a firearm in defense of myself, my property, and my country. PERIOD. I've been carrying a handgun on my person since 2003, and it hasn't jumped out of its holster and shot anyone. It has saved my ex-wife and my life on two separate occasions. Responsible gun ownership and safety are incredibly important. We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a people problem. A heart, mind, and soul problem. Human life isn't valued anymore. It's been proven that Gun Control doesn't work. Look at Chicago and Detroit, the two cities with the strictest gun laws. Most if not all of our recent mass shootings were all in Gun Safe zones, and the attacks were carried out by registered Democrats or Muslims. For every horror gun shooting story there's two about guns saving lives, and the OP is correct. They go unreported because they don't fit the Liberal agenda. Just the other day a legal concealed carrier stopped a school shooting. It was only reported on local news. Another story the same day of two college girls being attacked by a would be ****** held their attack at gun point until cops arrived. Smart gun ownership does work, it's a fact.

[Vanguard319]

Nik Reaper, on 11 October 2016 - 02:45 AM, said:

So here's a question, If modern man is not expected to stand up to the state with weapons, as the state is much better equipped, trained and organized, and he is not going to be recruited for militia duty to repel an invader state , I would ask why sell deadly ammunition?

While I know that rubber bullets can be deadly, most of the time they are not while still being a great force equalizer , more so automatic guns , with so many hard hitting brazers they can incapacitate a man or a group of man quickly and is better IMO from single fire , short range tazers for self defense and against home invasions ( though would suggest combining guns with rubber bullets and tazers for maximum effect ) .

Except the founding fathers were not stupid. They were well read and educated, and they knew that technology would improve over time. (true rifles were already available at this time when Armies were still using muskets, and they would have been aware of early repeating firearms.) The Constitution is meant to be a living document, it is meant to be appended upon as the country grows. In terms of the second amendment, this means that the right of the people to form a "well regulated Militia" means they have the right to be equipped with firearms and equipment appropriate for the era. Since Militia can function as law enforcement, it can be logically assumed that the people have the right to be have equipment similar to what the police use (in this case, semi-auto magazine fed Rifles, handguns, and shotguns, as these are all available to the police.)

Heffay, on 11 October 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

We should spend a ton more time and effort on developing non lethal weapons.

That still doesn't mean we should ban guns. There is no legitimate reason for doing so. Responsible use of anything should be allowed.

Unfortunately, There is no such thing as a non-lethal round, or a gunshot wound that is "only a flesh wound". As for examples to prove my argument, Victoria Snelgrove, the Emerson College student who was killed in the aftermath of the Red Sox's 2004 ALC series victory was shot with an FN 303, a "non-lethal" firearm designed to fire pepperballs only. A more recent example is the boy who died in SC, he was shot in the leg and bled to death from the wound. Even a taser round can be lethal if the person it is shot at has a heart condition that requires a pacemaker. What is needed is proper education: Conventional wisdom states If you draw your weapon, you've declared your intent to use deadly force. Putting an end to the "thug" culture that glorifies violent crime would also help.

Edited by Vanguard319, 12 October 2016 - 03:04 PM.

[Heffay]

Vanguard319, on 12 October 2016 - 02:59 PM, said:

Unfortunately, There is no such thing as a non-lethal round, or a gunshot wound that is "only a flesh wound". As for examples to prove my argument, Victoria Snelgrove, the Emerson College student who was killed in the aftermath of the Red Sox's 2004 ALC series victory was shot with an FN 303, a "non-lethal" firearm designed to fire pepperballs only. A more recent example is the boy who died in SC, he was shot in the leg and bled to death from the wound. Even a taser round can be lethal if the person it is shot at has a heart condition that requires a pacemaker. What is needed is proper education: Conventional wisdom states If you draw your weapon, you've declared your intent to use deadly force. Putting an end to the "thug" culture that glorifies violent crime would also help.

Oh, I know it's hard and it'll never be perfectly safe. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on it.

It also has nothing to do with gun control. There is still no valid reason to ban guns.

[Void Angel]

Karl Streiger, on 12 October 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

When you really would think that you need to fight your gouverment - well you will have the same chance as the hadschis - death from above, death. when you are sleeping, death when you are sitting at the dinner, death when you crosses the street - you can have all the guns in the world - but the hellfire doesn't care about them or the group of civilians you are hiding behind

You're making several bad assumptions, and your understanding of modern combat is inadequate for the use to which you're putting it. The combat rifleman is the mainstay of any modern military, and there are tactics that allow for the negation of a technological advantage, as the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies demonstrated time and again. I know; I was there a couple tours. Also, the assumption that the military will simply turn on the citizenry en masse is dehumanizing and silly - we are citizens, and our oaths are to the Constitution first. None of this means that a popular uprising would be successful, or that all or most of the military would necessarily side with the public if it happened - what it does mean is that the presence of significant personal arms makes such an uprising possible, which is the point of our Constitution.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 October 2016 - 05:30 PM.

[Heffay]

The whole "You can't fight the army" reason for attempting to argue that people don't need guns is dumb. For a modern example, look at Turkey.

Thinking that the military is a homogeneous organization that marches in lock step is not very smart.

[Void Angel]

Or simply uninformed; but yeah, the idea is quite wrong.

[Void Angel]

...
That's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard. This definition of acceptable peace includes "a boot, stamping on a human face, forever."

Good thing he's not in charge.

[Quinn Allard]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 12 October 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

Frankly I am for whatever works to achieve peace. If people would rather fight to keep their rifles, then they can fight and die to do that. But if it means peace, I will be on the side of the people taking out those standing for guns.

In my opinion global peace is way more important than people's individual rights. I would be in favor of a total, totalitarian dictatorship if it meant world peace. I honestly don't care to have freedoms myself, I find them pointless. Freedoms are the reason why wars and murder happen.

And how do you intend to "take out those with guns"? Strong words? Books? Sticks? Point to me ONE Dictatorship that coincided with World Peace, much less a happy populace. You don't care for freedoms? You find them pointless? You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? The Freedom to use your internet as you see fit, to post your opinions? The freedom to chose who you love? The freedom to send your children to the school of your choice? The freedom to choose your own religion? Sometimes I think YOU are the reason we own guns, to protect ourselves from lunatics like YOU.

[Karl Streiger]

Quinn Allard, on 12 October 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

And how do you intend to "take out those with guns"? Strong words? Books? Sticks? Point to me ONE Dictatorship that coincided with World Peace, much less a happy populace. You don't care for freedoms? You find them pointless? You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? The Freedom to use your internet as you see fit, to post your opinions? The freedom to chose who you love? The freedom to send your children to the school of your choice? The freedom to choose your own religion? Sometimes I think YOU are the reason we own guns, to protect ourselves from lunatics like YOU.

Perfect - usually the simplest people to rule over have

• a bogeyman (could be a foreign country, or simple people of the same country but with different relegion or the color of their skin (as old as human nature but still works great)
  
• ignorance and a low level of education
  
• medias that underline the believes and way of thinking of its people

This thread is a perfect example of the bogeyman and how the medias are using it to route them in one or the other direction.
You have the anti-gun bias media and they **** with those that are sane enough to have the right to have them - so everybody who might only look like he might have the same idea of the medias is a douchbag and must be complete stupid because he/she doesn't have the same opinion.

On the other hand there are those that follow the informations in the medias and don't have a gun or don't even want to have any. It can be fear or maybe just hard facts (number of shootings) that help them to get their opinion - and again they think those with guns are self made rambos with the brainsize of an ant.

Don't you realize it? You play the game the government has laid out for you. It is the same all over the world.
Simple because people are just a weak bunch of hormones. Greed and envy are hard coded into our genes we can't betray our nature.

When Madrack is talking about peace at all costs - he does this because of the instinct or fear simple because he want to live in a world where he isn't confronted with violence every day (didn't he lived in Detroit)

When for example Void is saying weapons help to keep the freedom because there is the chance that there is an uprising so that a "maybe" dictator would not dare to strip away their rights. Again instinct and fear

And both of you are absolut correct - the problem is you have to live with each other - neither of you is able to turn the opinion of the other.-

Might be helpful to route those with guns on one side of a city and those without in the minor part of the other side of the city - at best with a river and few bridges between where a heavy armed 3rd party is protecting the one side from the other.

Is this freedom? No why not? The people on the one side of the river are free to have their guns and have the freedom of speech, and internet and religion those on the other side have the same freedom but without guns.

Think about it, I'm neither on one or the other side. If i had the ability to have a gun i would do it. Not because I really think i need it simple because I'm still the 6 year old boy with a fascination for weapons and military and war ....
(guilty my bigger brother wathing Four tank-men and a dog and the education that started in the kindergarten (was one of my best day in childhood when Russian soldiers did come into our kindergarten and did take all the children in their huge urals and did drive some minutes with us - maybe it was a demonstration of "force" for our parents don't know)

---

BTW:

Void Angel, on 12 October 2016 - 05:30 PM, said:

You're making several bad assumptions, and your understanding of modern combat is inadequate for the use to which you're putting it. The combat rifleman is the mainstay of any modern military, and there are tactics that allow for the negation of a technological advantage, as the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies demonstrated time and again. I know; I was there a couple tours. Also, the assumption that the military will simply turn on the citizenry en masse is dehumanizing and silly - we are citizens, and our oaths are to the Constitution first. None of this means that a popular uprising would be successful, or that all or most of the military would necessarily side with the public if it happened - what it does mean is that the presence of significant personal arms makes such an uprising possible, which is the point of our Constitution.

Well I think i didn't delivered my point correct.
It wasn't about that you won't be able to cause significant damage - the backbone of military is just again clad in flesh - much cheaper and simpler to keep in comparison with a 24/7 drone survilance
The question was about the price.
You might be accept that you will die when you fight in that uprising, but are you that kind of man that can say the same for your wife, children even your dog. Not to tell about your neighbors some of them don't have a gun.
Because the only shield you have is the "humantiy" of the others.

Similar to the kidnapper that is caught by the police - and he tells them that his hostage is well hidden but allive. And he only would tell them were the hostages is hiding when they let him go - otherwise that hostage would starve.
They don't have many options now. The only way to get the the informations is to use drugs or torture but because he is no "other" but a person protected by the rights of the gouverment this is not a option
You might can give him to the family of the hostage - but this isn't correct either.

Long Text sry - and I'm sure you would not read it but TLDR - there is no "We and Them" try to undestand the opinion of the other, try to see the truth behind instead of thinking the other guy is just simple a stupid lunatic

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 12 October 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

The way I see it. If no one has guns

Quote

Unicorn

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

We don't kill each other because of the consequences that would ensue (laws).

That's not the only reason. In fact there is a far more powerful biological reason that prevents people from just becoming wanton, savage murderers just because they had a bad day:

The desire to get laid.

Murderers generally don't do very well at the whole reproductive thing. Turns out it isn't a trait that a potential mate would find advantageous.

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

Duh fuq? I guess a horse with a horn on its head is supposed to nullify my arguments. I could just point out that you call yourself Heffay, which means you are basically a lazy ***.

Mythological scenarios fit well with mythological creatures.

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 07:53 AM, said:

So like I said, we don't kill everyone because of the consequences. Again, we are naturally savage, and only don't act on it because of the problems that would ensue. And the desire to **** outways the desire to kill those we don't like much of the time.

A way to just tell how savage we can be is to just look out how sadistically we slaughter other animals. And also how many methods of execution we have come up with over the past.

We are disgusting things, and historically giving us freewill just leads to worse outcomes.

So, take away guns? Just because you suffer from an irrational fear of them?

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

No take away guns, and freewill, because humans massacre each other when they have them.

Also apparently a good amount of the world has an "irrational fear" of them, seeing as how most of the world regulates guns. Whereas Murica is sitting here with its thumbs up its own *** saying "nope guns don't hurt anyone" while their people get more holes in them from guns than any other western civilization.

Let's just create a matrix, hook everyone up, and world's problems are over.

So you think the world is a dystopian nightmare? Does the fact that violent crimes are down to historic lows, life expectancies and education levels are at historic highs, cheeseburgers are more dangers now than childbirth, and yes... even violence due to guns continues on a downward march for many decades... you still think the world is going in the wrong direction?

I understand you're dealing with a lot of your own issues, but don't project them on the world. The world has *never* been a better place. And it's going in the right direction too. Why would you want to undo all that progress?

[Void Angel]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

And your definition is "give people freedom and guns and they magically will be happy and won't kill each other."

Yeah its just as freakin bad.

Also there is no such thing as acceptable peace. There is only peace. Peace is never something that comes naturally to the human race. It is always enforced. Hence why governments exist in the first place. Humans are naturally violent creatures, and we don't live at peace unless forced too.

We don't kill each other because of the consequences that would ensue (laws). But that still doesn't stop many. Inherently we just do what we want to save our own skins. If we were naturally peaceful creatures we wouldn't need police, governments, or really any form of authority to keep us in check.

Weren't you ignoring me? Awww, you do care - we can go shop for rings.

Wait, on second thought, you're just quoting my criticism so you can accuse me of saying something I've never said and don't believe in order to debunk the false position. Either you're completely dishonest intellectually, or you haven't the basic education needed to examine and understand your own presuppositions - much less construct a valid argument. Maybe you hoped I'd get mad enough not to notice that you accepted my criticism and tried to deflect it by lying? You're bad at logic, and sophistry - perhaps you're trying for both... #strawman #goaway

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

And it wouldn't be undoing progress. In fact taking away certain freedoms would definitely help progress. A unified humanity would be more productive than one that just does whatever it wants.

That was tried. You know what happened? Human nature got in the way.

What you are looking for can't be done. So instead of pining for a unicorn, maybe you could enter the practical world and try to find practical solutions to legitimate problems.

[Heffay]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 13 October 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

Why should I try and solve legitimate problems when the rest of the world doesn't try?

Are you flippin' kidding me? You think nobody is trying to make the world a better place?? You think we're at the greatest moment in human evolution just by accident, and not as a result of the hard work of millions of people over history?

You're projecting. Maybe you'll be at peace if you never have to make a decision again, but basically you're punting on having any sort of responsibility and asking for others to do the thinking for you. It's the exact same approach a five year old has. Let mommy make all the decisions and provide all the solutions.

[Void Angel]

Karl Streiger, on 12 October 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

Long Text sry - and I'm sure you would not read it but TLDR - there is no "We and Them" try to undestand the opinion of the other, try to see the truth behind instead of thinking the other guy is just simple a stupid lunatic

Take your own advice - you don't really understand my position, characterizing it as the weak-minded opinion of a man ruled by fear. There are no guarantees that a popular uprising will be successful - but there are likewise no guarantees that the entire military will turn on its own like rabid dogs. It could happen; Milgram's experiments demonstrated that. But the point of having a deterrent isn't that no one can ever overcome it - the goal is to make it harder. And it is harder; why do you think disaffected veterans and "fundamentalist" religious groups have shown up on lists of possible sources of terrorism?

I'm well aware of Marack's opinion. It's horrible, wrong-headed, and too incoherent to be true, but I understand what he's thinking. And he's not right; he contradicts himself without knowing it, claiming that "peace," by whatever definition, must be ruled by force - and at the same time telling us that people are "horrible," and "disgusting," and cannot handle free will. Presumably, the beings who are exercising the rule of force to create "peace" are humans, and those with the power in society are by definition exercising free will. This position is inherently contradictory - it fails one of the most basic tests for truth, and may be discarded at will. In fact, it should be. Just because someone honestly holds an opinion does not make their opinion valid - not everyone gets a trophy here.

Perhaps if you spent less time donning an air of affronted victimhood and practiced what you just preached, you'd avoid accusing others of the exact misconduct you're committing yourself.