hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 74 12341151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1462

Thread: An article on gun laws

  1. #1
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159

    An article on gun laws

    In before the lock and all that, but after the raging discussion we had about this, there was one specific article that I wanted to share with Nicho, Jason, Frug, elmicker, Fenrial, Ophichius etc etc. So mods, before you lock this: I'd like to argue that the inherent intent of a forum is to be able to share information with your fellow forumites, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If it gets out of hand, by all means lock it.

    Anyway, I've been reading a lot of articles from both sides of the debate, and this one is so far the most balanced and eloquent one I've read, so I wanted to share it.

    Link here

    Copy paste of entire article:
      Spoiler:
    I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

    This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

    That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

    Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

    Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

    As passed by the Congress:
    "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."
    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    "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."

    So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

    "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

    Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    Definition of MILITIA
    1
    a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
    b : a body of citizens organized for military service
    2
    : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

    The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

    Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

    I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

    Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
    a. be labeled a moron
    b. shut the fuck up
    c. be removed

    And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

    These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

    Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

    Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

    But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

    I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

    There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

    These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

    SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

    We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

    I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

    So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

    But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

    In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.


    Finally, Tl;dr for those not inclined to read it before knowing the general gist:
    -Focus on constitution, and how it's being misused by people who didn't actually read that the second amendment clearly specifies the right to bear arms "while in a well regulated Militia".
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    -Why the argument "this wouldn't have happened if someone in the theater had a gun" is ludicrous and offensive to the victims
    -Why even a simple compromise of at least letting it be regulated (instead of denying people the right to bear arms) might have prevented this because somebody buying 5 guns, 6000+ rounds of ammo and full body kevlar would have shown up as being highly irregular and suspicious.

    Anyway, I just wanted to share this. Hopefully some people might find it an interesting article.

  2. #2
    Chakrai's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,677
    This thread would never have happened if you had a gun.
    She did what?

  3. #3
    evil edna's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,408
    nah you could post on your phone while shooting up a school these days

    : progress:

  4. #4
    Cortess's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Posts
    4,934
    Guns are fine, people are not.

    So don't give guns to people.

  5. #5
    Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Location
    The land down under.
    Posts
    7,333
    Guns don't kill people, Jaws kills people.


  6. #6
    Smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

    In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

    If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.

  7. #7
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

    In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

    If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.
    well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

    But why are guns used for?

    to murder people

    so...

    look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.

  8. #8
    Smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

    In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

    If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.
    well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

    But why are guns used for?

    to murder people

    so...

    look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.
    I'd say it's much harder to kill as many people with a knife before being subdued. The power of gun is many orders of magnitude higher than a knife and its far easier to just lose it for a second with a gun and it will be fatal. Additionally, knives are a common household item that people need so its much less justifiable to prevent their sale, wheras guns are not.

    I say this as someone who had a very good friend lose his younger brother to knife crime last year.

  9. #9
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p

    The "If someone wants to kill someone and can't find a gun, they'll use a knife/pickaxe/tomato" argument was discussed already, and is utterly ludicrous. The Denver guy had an assault rifle (that luckily jammed and he couldn't fix it), but resorted to a handgun for the killings. Result? 12 dead. The argument of "he'd have used a knife" doesn't hold up, because it is based on the assumption that the same amount of damage can be done with different equipment.

    A guy with an angry disposition and a tomato: No deaths but one high drycleaning bill.
    A guy with a knife and no body armour: Maybe one fatality.
    A guy with a knife and full kevlar: Maybe a few.
    A guy with a handgun and full kevlar: 12 dead.
    A guy in full kevlar with a working assault rifle: Look at Breivik. We could have been looking at 5x the amount of fatalities.

  10. #10
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

    In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

    If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.
    well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

    But why are guns used for?

    to murder people

    so...

    look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

    Scroll down to homicide rates. As you can see easy access to firearm can be directly linked to higher homicide rates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

    A more comprehensive list can be found on this page with never statistics but its not differentiated between gun violence and any other violence.


    

  11. #11
    Joshua Foiritain's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    I'd say hanguns are just as bad.

    In the UK, since we banned handguns following the Dunblane massacre, we basically have a policy that people would never own a gun for the purpose of firing it at a person or as a form of defence unless they're police/army. Guns are generally owned by people in rural areas for shooting animals, which is how it should be.

    If Americans want evidence of why their gun laws are stupid you just have to look at many nations with very tightly regulated gun ownership to see that we have far fewer incidences of this kind.
    well of course you'll have less gun crime if guns are banned.

    But why are guns used for?

    to murder people

    so...

    look at murder rates instead. The gun is a weapon, it doesn't make you kill people. No gun? They'll use a knife.
    Murders per 100.00 people with any weapon;
    North America
    2004: 6.5
    2010: 4.7

    West and Central Europe
    2004: 1.5
    2010: 1.2

    Most people can barely drive a car or operate an oven, how on earth can it be a good idea to let them use weapons?



  12. #12
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p
    nope


    EDIT: oh you're on about mass shootings specifically?

  13. #13
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,090
    If firearms had never reached the point of the self-contained cartridge, I sincerely doubt there would be as much gun violence (or ownership) as today.
    You didn't read the article, did you Ralara? ;p

    The "If someone wants to kill someone and can't find a gun, they'll use a knife/pickaxe/tomato" argument was discussed already, and is utterly ludicrous. The Denver guy had an assault rifle (that luckily jammed and he couldn't fix it), but resorted to a handgun for the killings. Result? 12 dead. The argument of "he'd have used a knife" doesn't hold up, because it is based on the assumption that the same amount of damage can be done with different equipment.

    A guy with an angry disposition and a tomato: No deaths but one high drycleaning bill.
    A guy with a knife and no body armour: Maybe one fatality.
    A guy with a knife and full kevlar: Maybe a few.
    A guy with a handgun and full kevlar: 12 dead.
    A guy in full kevlar with a working assault rifle: Look at Breivik. We could have been looking at 5x the amount of fatalities.
    More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  14. #14
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

    Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.

  15. #15
    Kanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

    Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.
    This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side

  16. #16
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.
    More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.

  17. #17
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Kanv View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

    Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.
    This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side
    im actually an anti-gun advocate btw

  18. #18
    Smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kanv View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

    Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.
    This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side
    im actually an anti-gun advocate btw
    Don't you live in the UK gun crime capital?

  19. #19
    Ski Boot Fortior's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    More or less. Guns have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 1900 and see how many were killed by firearms.
    More or less. Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera have the nasty habit of inducing confidence in their wielders, and making violence more accessible. By "accessible', I mean easier or possible. Look at all the heads of state and household names killed since 0091 and see how many were killed by Swords, Bows, Spears, Axes, Poison, etcetera.
    Excellent retort sir, you are an inspiration to us all!

    (No really, that's a retarded argument.)

    Guns are lethal no matter your training. All your other examples require a decent amount of training. Guns have range - swords and axes don't. Bows have range but no rate of fire to speak of - guns have serious rate of fire.

    Comparing medieval weapons to moderns weapons is retarded. For instance, how many kids have been killed by accident after they found their dads bow or sword with the safety off?
    Real men pvp in barges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amantus View Post
    good to see that Fortior seems like a decent bloke and isn't a gay fat faggot nerd despite his pony avatar

  20. #20
    THE PUNISHED
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fuck UngoodTuesdays
    Posts
    10,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kanv View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    Can you read it then please? ;p No real point posting in a thread discussing an article when you haven't read said article.

    Edit: Aimed at ralara, obv.
    This issue will be debated, but no one will be listening to facts or the other side
    im actually an anti-gun advocate btw
    Don't you live in the UK gun crime capital?
    and that makes me pro gun because... ?


    actually i dont really care about guns one way or another.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •