So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Blablahb:
The majority of people on the planet believe that it's okay to murder people for treading on your lawn, opening your front door, trying to steal something, or asking you for money?

The majority of people believe in the right of self defense.

Untill you do I'm right though.

Making up strawman arguments does not make you right.

I've never claimed anything different.

Yes you have. Many, many, many times.

A situation which doesn't help the gun lobby one tiny little bit, because a situation where someone is a mortal threat to you, and you see it coming from far away enough to grab a gun, will never happen

Never? http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

Bullshit.

You said yourself you wanted to commit murder upon burglars. Don't go flipflopping by denying that now.

I said that? Would you mind quoting the post where I said that? Of course not, because I never did.

....and the ones who perpetrate 100% of all firearms crime.

Citation.

All firearms crime is perpetrated by gun owners, people who have guns.

But not necessarily. Simple possession does not equal ownership.

(which I can understand, I wouldn't want to be part of a group asociated with highly elevated rates of violent crime)

Good thing I am not associated with one of those groups. In fact my socio-economic cultural position is such that I am very very unlikely to commit any sort of violent crime. You are though. In fact you have admitted on this very site to assaulting one of your co-workers over a joke. Do you want to turn yourself in as a danger to the state or should I?

you can remove yourself from that group at any time of your choosing by disarming. It would be a good thing if you did. A moral thing.

Ah yes, morality. What would you expect from Saint Blablahb himself.

Lucky for you, yes, nobody's been killed yet. The statistics speak for themselves though

What statistics? You have not provided any.

Emotional situation + guns = murder in some cases.

So you backed off of all cases. Progress. However, that is not a statistic.

Emotional situation + gun ban = a black eye or a few bruises in the worst of cases.

Or a mass homicide- http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/quakers-hill-home-fire-toll-tops-20-20120214-1t49v.html

farson135:

Blablahb:
The majority of people on the planet believe that it's okay to murder people for treading on your lawn, opening your front door, trying to steal something, or asking you for money?

The majority of people believe in the right of self defense.

Untill you do I'm right though.

Making up strawman arguments does not make you right.

I've never claimed anything different.

Yes you have. Many, many, many times.

A situation which doesn't help the gun lobby one tiny little bit, because a situation where someone is a mortal threat to you, and you see it coming from far away enough to grab a gun, will never happen

Never? http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

Bullshit.

You said yourself you wanted to commit murder upon burglars. Don't go flipflopping by denying that now.

I said that? Would you mind quoting the post where I said that? Of course not, because I never did.

....and the ones who perpetrate 100% of all firearms crime.

Citation.

All firearms crime is perpetrated by gun owners, people who have guns.

But not necessarily. Simple possession does not equal ownership.

(which I can understand, I wouldn't want to be part of a group asociated with highly elevated rates of violent crime)

Good thing I am not associated with one of those groups. In fact my socio-economic cultural position is such that I am very very unlikely to commit any sort of violent crime. You are though. In fact you have admitted on this very site to assaulting one of your co-workers over a joke. Do you want to turn yourself in as a danger to the state or should I?

you can remove yourself from that group at any time of your choosing by disarming. It would be a good thing if you did. A moral thing.

Ah yes, morality. What would you expect from Saint Blablahb himself.

Lucky for you, yes, nobody's been killed yet. The statistics speak for themselves though

What statistics? You have not provided any.

Emotional situation + guns = murder in some cases.

So you backed off of all cases. Progress. However, that is not a statistic.

Emotional situation + gun ban = a black eye or a few bruises in the worst of cases.

Or a mass homicide- http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/quakers-hill-home-fire-toll-tops-20-20120214-1t49v.html

I am beginning to think that Blah thinks you have to fire a gun to use in in self defense, rather than using the threat as a way to enforce compliance of an attacker.

Lunar Shadow:
I am beginning to think that Blah thinks you have to fire a gun to use in in self defense, rather than using the threat as a way to enforce compliance of an attacker.

Actually I am starting to think more and more that Blablahb does not actually believe any of the crap he is shoveling. Instead he is just acting as a parody of the worst elements of the anti-gun movement. If not, the alternative is rather disturbing.

mattttherman3:

Xan Krieger:
Snip.

That is bs, self defense from what? 12 armed intruders at once? That is overcompensation if I've ever heard it. If you want a gun, get a shotgun with buckshot, that will stop anyone. The fact that you have "played" with the gun is also disturbing, GUNS ARE NOT TOYS

How about defense against this?

Now I'm no Republican. I even voted for Obama. And I'm glad I did. But in spite of all the good he's done, passing this objectively unconstitutional bill that allows the military to simply kidnap any American civilian on suspicion of terrorism or aiding terrorism really reduces him from "that smart guy who'll fix what Bush broke, and also support gays" to "the best of two turds."

Yes it's true that the bill probably won't be abused, but it could be. And that's the problem. What if we really do descend into a police state where the military can arrest you on sight without trial for the rest of your life? This bill does grant the military that power. So when a soldier could at any moment take me away from my family and friends for the rest of my life, just because he saw me watching some Muslim documentary on the history channel? Yes, I would like to keep the same weapon he has. Because as of the signing of this bill, our own military has become a domestic threat.

I lurk here a lot as I do not have the time to post much, but I'm on break so what the hell.

I have read all 11 pages so far, but this post (excluding the weirdness that Blahb spouts of course) really irks me the most.


It is very obvious that Tyelcapilu has never gone through, or even googled, the process of actually purchasing a firearm in the United States. Also I see no actual knowledge of firearms in any shape or form backing this post, and nothing is wrong with this alone. Ignorance on a particular topic is nothing to be ashamed of, and I am not afraid to admit that I am probably ignorant on more than my fair share. This, however, happens to be one topic which I do consider myself fairly versed in.

The reason I find this post exceedingly worrisome is that it is presented so arrogantly and is extraordinarily judgmental all the while being based on what appears to be opinions and pure conjecture.

And I see a lot of this from the anti-gun crowd. They are often extremely passionate about a subject in which they know very little to nothing about. I know almost nothing about sports, and I realize this. This means that when my roommate is watching the Packers game and the substitute refs make a game-deciding call, I keep my mouth shut. When he and several other people are up in arms about how that was the worst call in history, I say nothing. I know I have no right to contradict them as I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make any intelligent claim one way or another. And if I for some reason do interject, I will do so as respectfully as possible as I am the uneducated outsider.

Now I really wanted to debase many things about this post (and others if I had the time), and I will do so to the extent in which my knowledge allows if desired, but instead I will just ask for one thing. Please at least attempt to educate yourself on a subject before vocalizing, especially if such opinions involve slandering others and insulting their competence on the issue. I realize this is a sensitive issue, especially at this time, but passion is not an excuse for intentional ignorance.

I am not saying you should agree with me because you do not know better, just that you should try and do at least rudimentary research on a topic before forming an opinion.

The most terrifying thing to me is that people with similar levels of knowledge are the ones who are, figuratively, screaming at the top of their lungs for gun bans, and have the power to institute them. People who know nothing about firearms are the ones who want to decide our rights to protect ourselves, our property, and our families.

And the scarier thing is that these same people are the ones who legislate countless other social issues with a similar absence of knowledge on them as well.

This is why I hate politics.

mattttherman3:

Xan Krieger:
Snip.

That is bs, self defense from what? 12 armed intruders at once? That is overcompensation if I've ever heard it. If you want a gun, get a shotgun with buckshot, that will stop anyone. The fact that you have "played" with the gun is also disturbing, GUNS ARE NOT TOYS

No. Guns are not toys.

Any firearm owner worth their salt has safety driven up to levels of utter insanity. Never point at anything your not willing to shoot. Always have safety on and finger off the trigger till your ready to fire. Check to make sure gun is loaded every time it is handed to you, even if you know it is unloaded, etc.

Does not mean they cannot be fun to shoot. Your car isn't a toy, yet it can be fun to speed along the track.

Against most targets, the non-fully auto AK-47 is not going to be much more dangerous than the shotgun, but more a bit more accurate at longer ranges (good for range visits) and is FAR easier to reload.

Blablahb:
That's just your dogmatic idea, and not fact.

Murder is a legal designation. So no, it's not his opinion, it's law.

Not G. Ivingname:

mattttherman3:

Xan Krieger:
Snip.

That is bs, self defense from what? 12 armed intruders at once? That is overcompensation if I've ever heard it. If you want a gun, get a shotgun with buckshot, that will stop anyone. The fact that you have "played" with the gun is also disturbing, GUNS ARE NOT TOYS

No. Guns are not toys.

Any firearm owner worth their salt has safety driven up to levels of utter insanity. Never point at anything your not willing to shoot. Always have safety on and finger off the trigger till your ready to fire. Check to make sure gun is loaded every time it is handed to you, even if you know it is unloaded, etc.

Does not mean they cannot be fun to shoot. Your car isn't a toy, yet it can be fun to speed along the track.

Against most targets, the non-fully auto AK-47 is not going to be much more dangerous than the shotgun, but more a bit more accurate at longer ranges (good for range visits) and is FAR easier to reload.

Long range? How big is YOUR house?

Sorry, but a spray of buckshot is still logically going to be easier to hit with than a single round.

farson135:
The majority of people believe in the right of self defense.

How many time would it need repeating that self-defense and gun use are mutually exclusive? You can't use guns for self-defense. The point's been argued for at least twenty times and the gun violence advocates lost it every time: People aren't out get you, and if you're that unlucky one-in-X-million where 'they' are, then you don't get to see it coming and use guns against it.

Now, let's hear your justification why you need guns. The farm turned out to be a smokescreen, and killing everyone you don't like or perceive as a threat doesn't count.

GunsmithKitten:
Murder is a legal designation. So no, it's not his opinion, it's law.

Hanging or strangling gay people also used to be the law. Does that make it a good thing, and something that shouldn't have been banned?

Yeah, so, that some US laws legalise murder doesn't make a difference. Kill someone who's not a direct mortal danger to you and that's murder.

someperson1423:
I have read all 11 pages so far, but this post (excluding the weirdness that Blahb spouts of course) really irks me the most.

If you're going to try and insult me, at least try to make an argument. It doesn't make sense to hate me because you disagree with me and my systematically demolishing gun lobby arguments is frustrating for you.

I mean, I know the gun lobby is heavily anti-freedom of speech and all, but at least try to behave.

Blablahb:
Yeah, so, that some US laws legalise murder doesn't make a difference. Kill someone who's not a direct mortal danger to you and that's murder.

Murder is a legal concept regarding the unlawful taking of a life.

Now, if you want to say that gunning down some silly fuck who's pissing in your mailbox is immoral or uncivilised I won't argue but if the laws of the jurisdiction say you can gun down some silly fuck for pissing in your mailbox then it cannot, by definition, be murder.

As far as I'm concerned if US citizens want to live lives of heavily armed paranoia, that's their business. I'm just glad I don't live there or intend to visit.

Blablahb:
How many time would it need repeating that self-defense and gun use are mutually exclusive? You can't use guns for self-defense. The point's been argued for at least twenty times and the gun violence advocates lost it every time: People aren't out get you, and if you're that unlucky one-in-X-million where 'they' are, then you don't get to see it coming and use guns against it.

Now, let's hear your justification why you need guns. The farm turned out to be a smokescreen, and killing everyone you don't like or perceive as a threat doesn't count.

Sir; I believe you have passed thoroughly into the realm of denial. I can understand someone making an argument that self defense situations don't happen often. However I don't see how you can deny not just the frequency but the entire possibility of using a firearm in a defensive capacity. There have been countless studies on the issue and even the "liberal" sources say that guns are used in self defense at least 100,000 times a year. Believe it or not, nearly all people who own firearms have absolutely no intention of using them in any kind of offensive action. We don't reach for them when we get upset. We don't consider shooting family and coworkers. We don't do that. People in general don't do that. Just because there is a capability does not mean there is a will.

2.5 Million

Somewhere Between 250,000 and 370,000

About 100,000

Blablahb:
Hanging or strangling gay people also used to be the law. Does that make it a good thing, and something that shouldn't have been banned?

It wasn't considered murder back then. It's a travesty that it wasn't, but it wasn't.

Yeah, so, that some US laws legalise murder doesn't make a difference.

You can't legalize murder in the first place, as murder is a strictly legalistic term.

Blablahb:
People aren't out get you, and if you're that unlucky one-in-X-million where 'they' are, then you don't get to see it coming and use guns against it.

And yet I did just that. I'm not alone either. I'm really rather tired of you telling me what went on in my own life, you know that? It's not a very good character trait to do that.

Blablahb:
How many time would it need repeating that self-defense and gun use are mutually exclusive?

You can say it as many times as you want. It does not change the fact that your statement is idiotic.

You can't use guns for self-defense.

So you are saying that this is not a case of self defense- http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_cbb8d741-70ed-549f-9c47-4c206b338928.html

Then tell me what self defense is.

People aren't out get you

Talk to me again when you live 10 miles away from a KKK/Neo-Nazi enclave. Oh wait, you are a privileged white boy from the city. Never mind. They might want to beat you up for being so privileged but that is about it. If the race war ever starts they would love to lynch me from the tree in my front yard (and if they get drunk they might just go ahead and try it after the insult I paid them).

and if you're that unlucky one-in-X-million where 'they' are, then you don't get to see it coming and use guns against it.

Really? http://monachuslex.com/?p=1678

The farm turned out to be a smokescreen

Was it? Are you trying to deny the fact that there are pests that need to be killed in order for a farm to function in Texas?

and killing everyone you don't like or perceive as a threat doesn't count.

Ok- http://www.examiner.com/article/retired-marine-and-former-pan-am-delta-pilot-john-lovell-is-top-gun-at-subway-sandwich-shop

Hanging or strangling gay people also used to be the law.

Citation.

Yeah, so, that some US laws legalise murder doesn't make a difference. Kill someone who's not a direct mortal danger to you and that's murder.

Luckily self defense laws work against people who are a direct threat to your life.

It doesn't make sense to hate me because you disagree with me and my systematically demolishing gun lobby arguments is frustrating for you.

But it does make sense to think that a person with such extremist views is weird. No matter what you think Blablahb, you are an extremist and even the antis on this site do not believe your bullshit.

I mean, I know the gun lobby is heavily anti-freedom of speech and all, but at least try to behave.

Anti freedom of speech? Coming from the guy who assaulted a person over a joke? Weren't you denying his freedom of speech? At least in your twisted logic.

farson135:
Talk to me again when you live 10 miles away from a KKK/Neo-Nazi enclave.

And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do? Most neonazis are hopeless immature people who just seek a way to rebel anyway. They ussually grow up.

I mostly just ignored them, put them in place where needed, but they're mostly just silly rednecks. Typical lower class.

farson135:
Was it? Are you trying to deny the fact that there are pests that need to be killed in order for a farm to function in Texas?

Well, you're still going to explain what pests are so dangerous they'll murder your family, cross an ocean and murder mine too, right? Because it became eerily quiet when I asked you why exactly you definately needed an arsenal against those 'pests' whatever they may be. So explain to us how your survivel depends on killing said pests with a militare grade arsenal please.

Because if you don't, you can make do with applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle, and thus be part of saving thousands of lives through gun control.

farson135:
But it does make sense to think that a person with such extremist views is weird. No matter what you think Blablahb, you are an extremist and even the antis on this site do not believe your bullshit.

Last time I checked, the US and Switserland were the only countries that have such a system, so there's got to be at least 500 million people in the western world alone who share my relative point of view in this.

I think people who believe murder is a good thing and justified, are the minority of extremists. Ask anyone: "Can I kill you because [insert trivial reason]", how many people will give the gun lobby answer of yes?

I think you'd find pretty much everyone you ask that will agree with me that murder is bad and can't be justified.

farson135:
Anti freedom of speech? Coming from the guy who assaulted a person over a joke?

Wasn't aware I ever did that. And if I don't remember it, you most certainly can't. Stop the hostility already.
In the meantime however, gun lobbyists are so opposed to free speech that if you inform the public about gun dangers, you need to hire armed protection, and if you criticise them, they want to deport you from the country.

Not my opinion, but two things that happened, done by gun owners.

Blablahb:
I think people who believe murder is a good thing and justified, are the minority of extremists. Ask anyone: "Can I kill you because [insert trivial reason]", how many people will give the gun lobby answer of yes?

Ask the question as such: "Do you believe you should be lawfully allowed to use a firearm in defense of yourself or others against violent attacks?". Even most articles by anti gun people admit that it's OK to own guns in your home for self defense.

Considering that most people on articles like these: http://www.wsbradio.com/news/news/crime-law/intruder-shot-armed-home-owner/nTnDg/ lament the fact that the homeowner didn't kill the guy, I'd be shocked if it turned out any other way.

CM156:
Ask the question as such: "Do you believe you should be lawfully allowed to use a firearm in defense of yourself or others against violent attacks?".

What's the relevance of that? That's not the viewpoint of the gun lobby. Their ideas include committing murder for rather trivial reasons like perceiving a threat (which means it may just be a perception and they were wrong) or committing murder upon people who are unfriendly or hostile, but not dangerous or even threatening.

They want to be able to kill for trivial reasons, so a valid question is to ask people if they support being killed for trivial reasons.

By the way, I must've said at least a dozen times I'm not interested in anecdotes of non-threatening burglars being murdered. I would apreciate it if you started listening and stopped posting them. The statistics speaks for themselves, guns cause violence. Untill you can challenge that idea by using valid statistics, don't bother posting anecdotes.

In the meantime, gun ownership and the 'I must defend the home!!' crazyness lead to shootings like this one, where a man kills his own daughter over a threat that appears totally fictional:
http://www.kxxv.com/story/19105473/man-confesses-to-killing-his-14-yr-old-daughter

And I remember at least one other case where someone shot their own 12 year old child because they heard something in the middle of the night in the house, grabbed their gun and set out to murder that burglar, and ended up killing their own child.

Blablahb:
What's the relevance of that? That's not the viewpoint of the gun lobby. Their ideas include committing murder for rather trivial reasons like perceiving a threat (which means it may just be a perception and they were wrong) or committing murder upon people who are unfriendly or hostile, but not dangerous or even threatening.

Gee, I must have missed that section in my NRA handbook.

They want to be able to kill for trivial reasons, so a valid question is to ask people if they support being killed for trivial reasons.

I don't consider defense against felonies a "trivial" reason.

By the way, I must've said at least a dozen times I'm not interested in anecdotes of non-threatening burglars being murdered.

Murdered.

You keep using that word. I can only hope you'll eventually learn what it means.

In the meantime, gun ownership and the 'I must defend the home!!' crazyness lead to shootings like this one, where a man kills his own daughter over a threat that appears totally fictional:
http://www.kxxv.com/story/19105473/man-confesses-to-killing-his-14-yr-old-daughter

And I remember at least one other case where someone shot their own 12 year old child because they heard something in the middle of the night in the house, grabbed their gun and set out to murder that burglar, and ended up killing their own child.

You say you're not interested in news stories that show people using guns in self defense (which you claim is impossible, by the way), and then you proceed to post stories of people using guns irresponsibly.

By the way, I don't post these stories for your bennifit. I post them to let others know that you think people like [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/okla-mom-shoots-intruder-no-charges_n_1186096.html]this[url] are murderers.

Because you said an 18 year old woman should just stand there, baby in hands, while people with unknown intent broke in. If you defend that postion still, you have no moral high ground in this. At all

Blablahb:
And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do?

Use their superior numbers to overpower and lynch me.

Most neonazis are hopeless immature people who just seek a way to rebel anyway. They ussually grow up.

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I mostly just ignored them, put them in place where needed, but they're mostly just silly rednecks. Typical lower class.

Of all the elitist things you could have possibly said.

Well, you're still going to explain what pests are so dangerous they'll murder your family, cross an ocean and murder mine too, right?

So you are just going to continue to make up strawman arguments instead of discussing what I actually said.

So explain to us how your survivel depends on killing said pests with a militare grade arsenal please.

I don't kill pests, the farm fails, my family starves.

Because if you don't, you can make do with applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle

Still using the word automated. At least learn the damn language.

BTW an AR-15 is not a military grade firearm. Why? Because no military on earth would ever accept it. Do you know what is a military grade firearm?-

image

Last time I checked, the US and Switserland were the only countries that have such a system, so there's got to be at least 500 million people in the western world alone who share my relative point of view in this.

Every single country on earth has allowances for self defense.

I think you'd find pretty much everyone you ask that will agree with me that murder is bad and can't be justified.

Murder yes, but not self defense. Find me a single person on this forum who agrees with you that it is impossible to use a firearm in self defense. Go for it.

Wasn't aware I ever did that. And if I don't remember it, you most certainly can't.

Actually I can. In fact here it is- http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.344705-Michael-Boomberg-to-Push-for-Gun-Control-in-Superbowl-Ad#13821576

Stop the hostility already.

You of all people are not in a position to say that.

In the meantime however, gun lobbyists are so opposed to free speech that if you inform the public about gun dangers, you need to hire armed protection

Actually, more likely if you are a pro-gun public figure you need to hire guards from anti-gun nutjobs- http://www.examiner.com/article/anti-gun-advocates-threaten-olympic-shooter-family-with-death

if you criticise them, they want to deport you from the country.

7,000 people and you condemn 80 million. That sound fair.

Not my opinion

Yes it is.

Does anybody else find it sort of amusing that with every additional post, Blablahb is responding to less and less criticism, but compensating with more fervor?

To stay on topic, I think that the ban on assault weapons is rather childish, as, from what I can see, a semi-automatic handgun has similar destructive potential to a semi-automatic rifle, and many fire identical rounds. This is purely impulsive, reactionary legislation, and I'm frankly sort of embarrassed that our President is bending to the twitchy media and hyperna´ve plebeian populace with the absurd notion that banning guns will somehow eliminate gun violence entirely.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5148/5611811881_5fcb8100e7.jpg " alt="image"/>

In conclusion, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Didn't Washington D.C. suffer a crime wave around the time they banned guns? Also wasn't the only reason they did so was because the Mob wanted less people with guns so they can rob them? Didn't the crime wave of D.C. GO DOWN when the gun ban was lifted?

Look at Mexico by the way, very strict gun laws, much stricter than the U.S. but they still have more guns than the U.S. does. People even came out saying, "Yeah Gun Control exists, we just don't follow it." Britain outlawed guns but they still have about half the violent crime the U.S. does and has only a 1/5 of the population. Switzerland has no Gun Control and requires that everyone carries Assault Rifles. You don't hear much about shootings now do you? I definitely wouldn't take my gun and try and shoot up an area where everyone is packing. Japan banned guns but has a much bigger problem with knives, now they're thinking of banning knives. There's a town somewhere in Colorado I think, I can't remember the name but the town required that all citizens had to have a gun in the house. Violent crime went down really quick and it's become a rather safe place.

The places where Gun Control has been enacted aren't exactly filling me with confidence. Maybe if they worked it would be different, but it's not.

Blablahb is the sort of person (or "person") who'd rather watch his whole family get gangraped, tortured and murdered instead of lifting a finger to help them. After all, self-defense and the defense of others is morally wrong. Let the police handle it... after everyone is already dead and the criminals have taken off.

Blablahb:

farson135:
Talk to me again when you live 10 miles away from a KKK/Neo-Nazi enclave.

And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do? Most neonazis are hopeless immature people who just seek a way to rebel anyway. They ussually grow up.

I mostly just ignored them, put them in place where needed, but they're mostly just silly rednecks. Typical lower class.

farson135:
Was it? Are you trying to deny the fact that there are pests that need to be killed in order for a farm to function in Texas?

Well, you're still going to explain what pests are so dangerous they'll murder your family, cross an ocean and murder mine too, right? Because it became eerily quiet when I asked you why exactly you definately needed an arsenal against those 'pests' whatever they may be. So explain to us how your survivel depends on killing said pests with a militare grade arsenal please.

Because if you don't, you can make do with applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle, and thus be part of saving thousands of lives through gun control.

farson135:
But it does make sense to think that a person with such extremist views is weird. No matter what you think Blablahb, you are an extremist and even the antis on this site do not believe your bullshit.

Last time I checked, the US and Switserland were the only countries that have such a system, so there's got to be at least 500 million people in the western world alone who share my relative point of view in this.

I think people who believe murder is a good thing and justified, are the minority of extremists. Ask anyone: "Can I kill you because [insert trivial reason]", how many people will give the gun lobby answer of yes?

I think you'd find pretty much everyone you ask that will agree with me that murder is bad and can't be justified.

farson135:
Anti freedom of speech? Coming from the guy who assaulted a person over a joke?

Wasn't aware I ever did that. And if I don't remember it, you most certainly can't. Stop the hostility already.
In the meantime however, gun lobbyists are so opposed to free speech that if you inform the public about gun dangers, you need to hire armed protection, and if you criticise them, they want to deport you from the country.

Not my opinion, but two things that happened, done by gun owners.

You mean semi-automatic, or fully-automatic?

Seriously, learn a few things about firearms before trying to make laws about them first.

ServebotFrank:
Didn't Washington D.C. suffer a crime wave around the time they banned guns? Also wasn't the only reason they did so was because the Mob wanted less people with guns so they can rob them? Didn't the crime wave of D.C. GO DOWN when the gun ban was lifted?

Look at Mexico by the way, very strict gun laws, much stricter than the U.S. but they still have more guns than the U.S. does. People even came out saying, "Yeah Gun Control exists, we just don't follow it." Britain outlawed guns but they still have about half the violent crime the U.S. does and has only a 1/5 of the population. Switzerland has no Gun Control and requires that everyone carries Assault Rifles. You don't hear much about shootings now do you? I definitely wouldn't take my gun and try and shoot up an area where everyone is packing. Japan banned guns but has a much bigger problem with knives, now they're thinking of banning knives. There's a town somewhere in Colorado I think, I can't remember the name but the town required that all citizens had to have a gun in the house. Violent crime went down really quick and it's become a rather safe place.

The places where Gun Control has been enacted aren't exactly filling me with confidence. Maybe if they worked it would be different, but it's not.

Some corrections:

There was a huge spike in DC crime after the trigger lock and handgun ban. While it did return to preban levels, after Heller the crime has still continued to tend downwards. http://politisite.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dc-gun-ban-chart-552x361.jpg

Britian has a higher total violent crime rate per 100,000 people than the US, but has a slightly lower murder rate: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

Switzerland actually does have gun control, you can't own handguns, for example, but your right about the requirement to own assault rifles (although after their mandatory military service, it is rendered semi-automatic) and they do have a low crime rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Don't know much about the situation in Japan, although they have had gun control laws longer than just about any other nation on the planet that has guns. They also had sword control and limits on weapons to the elite samurai and their masters. That is why so many iconic weapons (such as the num-chucks) started their lives as farming tools, those were the only things peseants could get their hands on.

Never heard of that town in Colorado, can you find a source backing that up?

Blablahb:
And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do?

Stab you, bludgeon you, choke you, hang you, run over with a car comes to mind.

Chainsaw executions are a fairly popular one among Russian skinheads, I understand.

CaffeinatedBandit:
Does anybody else find it sort of amusing that with every additional post, Blablahb is responding to less and less criticism, but compensating with more fervor?

Not to mention he's building enough strawmen to constitute a small nation's worth.

Oh, and his idea that any label he sticks on someone or some concept is automatically the appropriate one; as in, because I identify as a libertarian, I automatically am in league and agree with Christian evangelical right wingers, never minding my long post history of fighting it out with such people.

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:
And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do?

Stab you, bludgeon you, choke you, hang you, run over with a car comes to mind.

Chainsaw executions are a fairly popular one among Russian skinheads, I understand.

I only saw the video where they cut a guy's head off with a knife, took a long time doing it that way. The other guy in the video was shot in the head in front of his grave.

lordbyron227:

Blablahb:

farson135:
Talk to me again when you live 10 miles away from a KKK/Neo-Nazi enclave.

And if there's a gun ban so they're not armed, what are those going to do? Most neonazis are hopeless immature people who just seek a way to rebel anyway. They ussually grow up.

I mostly just ignored them, put them in place where needed, but they're mostly just silly rednecks. Typical lower class.

farson135:
Was it? Are you trying to deny the fact that there are pests that need to be killed in order for a farm to function in Texas?

Well, you're still going to explain what pests are so dangerous they'll murder your family, cross an ocean and murder mine too, right? Because it became eerily quiet when I asked you why exactly you definately needed an arsenal against those 'pests' whatever they may be. So explain to us how your survivel depends on killing said pests with a militare grade arsenal please.

Because if you don't, you can make do with applying for a permit for a non-automated hunting rifle, and thus be part of saving thousands of lives through gun control.

farson135:
But it does make sense to think that a person with such extremist views is weird. No matter what you think Blablahb, you are an extremist and even the antis on this site do not believe your bullshit.

Last time I checked, the US and Switserland were the only countries that have such a system, so there's got to be at least 500 million people in the western world alone who share my relative point of view in this.

I think people who believe murder is a good thing and justified, are the minority of extremists. Ask anyone: "Can I kill you because [insert trivial reason]", how many people will give the gun lobby answer of yes?

I think you'd find pretty much everyone you ask that will agree with me that murder is bad and can't be justified.

farson135:
Anti freedom of speech? Coming from the guy who assaulted a person over a joke?

Wasn't aware I ever did that. And if I don't remember it, you most certainly can't. Stop the hostility already.
In the meantime however, gun lobbyists are so opposed to free speech that if you inform the public about gun dangers, you need to hire armed protection, and if you criticise them, they want to deport you from the country.

Not my opinion, but two things that happened, done by gun owners.

You mean semi-automatic, or fully-automatic?

Seriously, learn a few things about firearms before trying to make laws about them first.

In my experience mate automatic is acceptable as any weapon where the gas cycles the action, you know as an umbrella term. It's not commonly used in that way, with many people preferring to be more specific on whether the weapon's cycle simply moves to completion upon the pull of the trigger or begins anew, but the term automatic is used in this fashion.

In addition, I trust that you are not a doctor and as such are not fully aware of the metabolic consequences of say, mercury ingestion, and yet you are most likely in favor of laws that limit its content in drinking water.

I believe that you are not a mechanical engineer, and yet you are most likely in favor of basic safety standards in cars.

You are probably don't own a brewery and yet I am fairly certain that you understand that a maximum alchohol percentage in over the counter beverages is probably a good idea.

There is no requirement to understand the mechanics of an item to wish for regulations of visible effects of that item. Actual legislation will obviously have to be done by people who do understand the mechanics, but that, surprisingly is one of the reasons that politicians are an actual profession instead of something that bakers do on the weekends.

the clockmaker:
In my experience mate automatic is acceptable as any weapon where the gas cycles the action, you know as an umbrella term. It's not commonly used in that way, with many people preferring to be more specific on whether the weapon's cycle simply moves to completion upon the pull of the trigger or begins anew, but the term automatic is used in this fashion.

He did not use the term automatic he used the term automated.

There is no requirement to understand the mechanics of an item to wish for regulations of visible effects of that item. Actual legislation will obviously have to be done by people who do understand the mechanics, but that, surprisingly is one of the reasons that politicians are an actual profession instead of something that bakers do on the weekends.

Yes there is. In all three of those examples people have some idea of what should be done. If they did not then no one would listen to them. Blablahb knows less about firearms than I know about nuclear physics (and that is saying something). For a person to argue so passionately that something must be done and to provide examples of what should be done, they should at least know what the fuck they are talking about.

the clockmaker:

There is no requirement to understand the mechanics of an item to wish for regulations of visible effects of that item. Actual legislation will obviously have to be done by people who do understand the mechanics, but that, surprisingly is one of the reasons that politicians are an actual profession instead of something that bakers do on the weekends.

Nevermind career politicians, this is normal people talking.

We were created equal, but we didn't all end up equal. Some people know more about certain things than others. You can have a 30-year-old ex Navy SEAL debating a 15-year-old on the subject of firearms. Just because we all have the right to an opinion doesn't make real-world experience and knowledge meaningless. For example, I've been told that my multiple FINRA licenses as a Financial Advisor+Consultant, years of experience, and peak AUM (assets under management) of multiple millions in retirement accounts involving tax-friendly optimization and dynamic portfolio re-balancing all means jack shit in a debate about finance because some kid heard something in their college class.

harmonic:
Snip

Mathematics=><=Philosophy

Some things can be debated with minimal knowledge, while most countries without guns function fine, if any country had 15yearold highschool kids as their main economical advisors it would probably not have a long-lasting economy.

Theres a reason things are debated, its mostly because its disputed. Mathematics such as economics and the like are, while I wont say nothing is being disputed in the sciences and even in Mathematics (Far from it) It tends to mainly be the qualified whom debate eachother on those subjects, mainly because they are the only ones whom have even a bit of understanding about it.

For example, when I talk to phsycologists from outside the country I see they have a very different view on past psycologists than we have. For example America has a much different take on it entirely as a whole and how they are educated on it in school, I guess you can call it a more modern one? (as it tends to dismiss old theories very easily).

Does that neccesarily make it better? Ehhh... I'd say no. But it does show that there are different ways of doing things.

While my posts might not have been directly related to what you wrote, its slightly related. You dont have to fault someone younger because of the fact that they are younger. Maybe they were just taught a different theory, and maybe this theory might even be more correct.

Guns and gun-control can be debated with the most miniscule of knowledge, it doesnt even take an ape to know that with the ammount of countries working without guns obviously the US could aswell. And every other country in Europe combined, despite having 200.000.000 more people has one thousand times less homocide via guns. And then it Isn't hard to take the next step to notice that far less people die in knife-massacres than to gun massacres (See the chineese incident recently with 22 injured. 22 Survivors) and the American equavelant, where the same ammount of people were attacked with a gun and most of them died.

Then theres the fact that many experts on the subject are biased. I'd say mostly the ones paid to argue for a certain point, the ones paid are usually the ones supporting the side earning massive profits on something that is on the line. (Hint: Its 'not' the experts advocating somethings removal. I really doubt those guys are funded by a cutlery-factory)

harmonic:

the clockmaker:

There is no requirement to understand the mechanics of an item to wish for regulations of visible effects of that item. Actual legislation will obviously have to be done by people who do understand the mechanics, but that, surprisingly is one of the reasons that politicians are an actual profession instead of something that bakers do on the weekends.

Nevermind career politicians, this is normal people talking.

We were created equal, but we didn't all end up equal. Some people know more about certain things than others. You can have a 30-year-old ex Navy SEAL debating a 15-year-old on the subject of firearms. Just because we all have the right to an opinion doesn't make real-world experience and knowledge meaningless. For example, I've been told that my multiple FINRA licenses as a Financial Advisor+Consultant, years of experience, and peak AUM (assets under management) of multiple millions in retirement accounts involving tax-friendly optimization and dynamic portfolio re-balancing all means jack shit in a debate about finance because some kid heard something in their college class.

Oh yes, I remember instructing some kid on work experience and he tried to tell me that I was holding my weapon wrong based on his extensive experience in video games, so I see where you are coming from.

The question though is less about the specific use of firearms but about their effect on the world around them. Someone does not need to know, for example, the difference between an optic sight and a scope, the difference between trace and AP (which is harder to spell than it looks) to know that you look through one and the other comes out the buisness end. YOu don't need to know the difference between a flash suppressor and sound suppressor to make a judgment on overall gun ownership.

Also, if I remember my escapist who's who Blah was in the dutch army (though I may be remembering another dutch fella) so he is not really some random 15 year old

Another collary, using this same logic, can we get civilians to stop trying to give their two cents on how the war on terror is conducted.

Final collary, that thing about the SEAL is hypothetical right?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked