hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2 of 74 FirstFirst 123451252 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1462

Thread: An article on gun laws

  1. #21
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,090
    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.
    1/10, you list no names and the argument was to point out technological changes since the signing of the US Constitution.

    Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.
    "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...

  2. #22
    Smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralara View Post
    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.
    Not saying it does ralalrlalrlalrla, just asking.

  3. #23
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428


      Spoiler:


    Quote Originally Posted by Fortior View Post
    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?
    You forgot to address the matter of poison in your rebuke, but I suppose if we continue to ignore the human capacity for violence and place the blame squarely on firearms as the root of evil this "discussion" can proceed merrily along its intended route.



    Personally, I'm automatically suspicious of any thread opened as soon as the last was locked, especially for a reason as spurious as "I just want to share this article" - which, I'd like to add, could have easily been done via private message.

    Lettuce be cereal, this isn't going to be a discussion about an article, it's going to be a discussion about the subject matter of the article.

  4. #24
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    Let's try and leave the "Fuck you"'s and stuff till page 3, so the mods have no reason to infract me for making a gun control thread so quickly after the next one.~

    That being said, I too agree with the clear fact that medieval weapons are far superior to modern firearms in terms of lethality. It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.

    On a more serious note, I am looking to understand the opposition's perspective and arguments, which is why I think this can be a good thread and discussion.

    In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
    1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)
    2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (disproven, unless you are in a "well regulated militia". Constitution says no such thing.)
    3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)
    4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.)
    5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

    So the above are the 5 most mentioned arguments in the global debate and the last thread. All of them have been disproven, so I'd like to hear from proponents what their current arguments are.

    Edit: Sparq, so you are saying that the human capacity for violence will have equal casualties regardless of the tools made available to them, and ignoring the possibility for a) accidents and b) the increase of collateral damage from said accidents with higher lethality of weapons.

    If you truly believe that, then why aren't you a proponent for making Tanks or nuclear weaponry accessible to the common people? Why do you draw an arbitrary line at firearms?
    Last edited by Roam; July 23 2012 at 12:43:31 PM.

  5. #25
    Movember 2012Donor ctrlchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fuckin roos m8
    Posts
    10,747


    inb4


    Your posting is medium, its not rare and its not well done
    - Krans 26/7/12

  6. #26
    Super VIP Dot Kransthow's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    どんちゃかちゃっかー♪
    Posts
    6,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -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".

    Quote Originally Posted by The second amendment
    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.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Not the militia, the people.

    Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

    l2historical context
    l2not be bad

    I'm not even american and I know this.

  7. #27
    Varcaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 15, 2011
    Posts
    20,502
    I like me guns you can get your hands off k thanks.

    For those wondering this was not an entirely serious post when I made it.
    Last edited by Varcaus; July 24 2012 at 12:06:14 PM.

  8. #28
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.
    Since Roam has elected to cite film as evidence,



    Check.

  9. #29
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Kransthow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -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".

    Quote Originally Posted by The second amendment
    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.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Not the militia, the people.

    Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

    l2historical context
    l2not be bad

    I'm not even american and I know this.
    Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

    The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

    Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\

  10. #30
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Also, when you can shoot multiple arrows per second, let me know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    It's the reason why in that one french movie where a few medieval guys timetravel to modernity, they subsequently take over the world with the sheer power and magnificence of chainmail and a sword.
    Since Roam has elected to cite film as evidence,



    Check.
    Was wondering how long it would take you to do that. Not long at all, apparently! come back to the thread when you've rejoined reality and have a logical argument.
    "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...

  11. #31
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428


    If you felt so strongly about defending Roam's soap box, Phrixus, why not just post about it?

    imo, this thread was predestined to descend into shit. The last one certainly did, but it appears we're obligated to ignore it.

    That's my immediate problem with it.
    Last edited by Sparq; July 23 2012 at 01:16:02 PM.

  12. #32
    Movember 2012Donor ctrlchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Fuckin roos m8
    Posts
    10,747
    I frequently neg rep people rather then post my disagreement in public.


    Your posting is medium, its not rare and its not well done
    - Krans 26/7/12

  13. #33
    Donor lubica's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    On the shitty side of the Alps
    Posts
    4,757
    A thread is only as shit as the posters posting posts in it.

    So, hi.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narmio
    Welcome to Dwarf Fortress, where there is a fine line between insanity and gameplay. The line menaces with spikes of obsessive compulsion.

  14. #34
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428
    Quote Originally Posted by ctrlchris View Post
    I frequently neg rep people rather then post my disagreement in public.
    Well, I'm a bit of a prick sometimes mate.

    So, there's that.

  15. #35
    Super VIP Dot Kransthow's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    どんちゃかちゃっかー♪
    Posts
    6,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kransthow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    -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".

    Quote Originally Posted by The second amendment
    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.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Not the militia, the people.

    Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

    l2historical context
    l2not be bad

    I'm not even american and I know this.
    Actually, if you do your research you'll come to terms with the fact that both interpretations have their proponents and have been verified in the past. The latest interpretation by the Supreme court (somewhere in 2000's) does agree with your statement that it should not be interpreted as only militias, so you're right on that point. However, it has gone back and forth before.

    The validity of the second amendment's interpretations aside, there's also of course the simple matter that it was adopted in 1790, when there was no such thing as fully automatic assault rifles with massive killing potential.

    Thanks for coming in here just to troll though, because you could have thought of/looked up these things yourself. =\


    Yeah it's a statement that can be interpreted in different ways...

    So let's interpret it that it means that the militia has a right to bear arms.

    This means that after spending two years fighting against the state militia using guns, they win, due to having guns, and then proceed to write a constitutional right saying the state militia has a right to bear arms, and not them, the people, who had just fought against a state militia, USING GUNS. Just be honest, that shit does not make any sense.

    Yes, they statement can be interpreted such that it's the militia's right to bear arms. But to do so involves flat out ignoring the historical context in which the statement was made and therefore loses the intention of the right.

    And regarding fully automatic assault rifles and the second amendment, seeing as it was to give the people the right to posses weapons with which to be able to revolt against the state militia, it would make sense for the people to have the right to posses weapons equivalent to those that the militia posses.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    July 22, 2011
    Posts
    351
    I'll just leave this here: It was one of the last posts before the lock in the other thread about this... I wrote it. I live in the UK, and have lived outside of the U.S. since 1996. So educated hate, please.

    I'm sick and tired of the double fucking standard around here. You assholes need to seriously stop being such hypocrites.

    When this happened:



    And the Mayor of Oslo responded with, and I quote...
    I donít think security can solve problems. We need to teach greater respect.
    We neckbeards and armchair quarterbacks cheered them on. And cheered even louder when Jens Stoltenberg talked about responding to extremism with democracy, openness, and freedom.

    However, because this thing happens in "LUL 'MERCA" again, we fucktards and miscreants have the audacity to pull up some standard that is in effect "over here" and we think that it needs to be enforced "over there". Then we fuck off to some other thread where we collectively bitch about America/NATO/Group X trying to apply their standard to some country full of brown people in it.

    What the fuck is wrong with all of you? Where has your memory gone? Your internal monologue that is supposed to occur before you press the "submit" key? Does the hate run that deep for an entity that lives, and operates by different rules? Things happen differently in different countries, and they have different customs and practices.

    Christ on a cracker, I got more intellectual discussion on the matter from a heavy equipment operator, and a pipe cutter.

    I love you guys, but damn you fucking suck sometimes.
    America doesn't want to be like everyone else. It's that simple. If it did, then the democratic processes in place would be hard at work to make it exactly like that. It hasn't happened yet.

    So, you can all wring your hands, and cry out in earnest all you want. But IT (America) is probably NEVER going to be a europeanized nation. The sooner you get that wrapped around your european nuggets, and just learn to stop trying to fix shit and bask in the superiority you already have... the better off Europe itself will be.

    Let me lay it out for you real softly:

    Countries don't have versions. Which means your version of it (whatever is rolling around that head of yours) don't mean fuck all.

    You're not in power to make changes. If you were, you wouldn't be here on FHC wringing your hands about it; you'd be somewhere nicer, with an oak desk or some shit.

    Your opinion of America doesn't mean fuck-all to the majority of Americans. Stop deluding yourself that they really care. Most of them don't even know where your country is on a map. That should educate you on how much of a fuck they give about you.

    Take a deep breath. It's a nice day here in the U.K. It'll be all right.

    Stop thinking some breath-taking run-through of a 200 year old document is going to somehow change things. The arguments aren't new, aren't genius, and certainly aren't eye-openers. Like the phrase in Battlestar Galactica--All of this has happened before, and will happen again. They've been coming up since probably two weeks after the documents were signed. We've come a long way. Now we can re-post that shit on the internet.
    Last edited by Nartek; July 23 2012 at 01:45:11 PM.

  17. #37
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,428
    Krans, stop trolling.

  18. #38
    Super VIP Dot Kransthow's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    どんちゃかちゃっかー♪
    Posts
    6,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    Krans, stop trolling.

    You can't crush my nippon spirit

  19. #39
    Donor Sofia Roseburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    4,095
    Considering the locale I think we can give this another go. I hope you saved those long posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Doomed Predator
    Sofia Roseburn; quiet, well mannered librarian by day; blood crazed, psychotic demigod by night.

  20. #40
    GiDiYi's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    3,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Kransthow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The second amendment
    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.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    Not the militia, the people.

    Why the people? Because the people that wrote this had just been fighting a war for two years against a state militia so they made the possession of firearms a right that the militia could not take away from them so they could revolt again if they needed to.

    l2historical context
    l2not be bad

    I'm not even american and I know this.
    First off: Let's keep the discussion in the bounds of the article that was quoted in the OP. This is not about banning firearms or something, but it's about banning what are basically arms designed for modern warfare and nothing else.

    Now on topic and the quoted post: Krans, you're correct in this statement. And it really makes sense of some sort. When you have to fight an oppresive government, it helps if your constitution enabled you to get a proper armament on an equal level in comparison to your opponent to fight of the oppressor.

    But: This isn't even close to what is the reality in the US today. You're not allowed to own any kind of the more serious armaments needed to fight against the army of the United States of America in its current state as an american citizen no matter where you live. And if we're thinking about it, it's probably a good idea, that the regular John Doe doesn't have access to nuclear strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    So, I guess, this argument falls short when compared to the existing reality, but even in a hypothetical "what if" universe it doesn't stand.

    Let's say, Obama is a communist spy, who's been secretely inserted by the KGB (who still exists, because that whole downfall of CCCP was just a really well disguised plan to distract the enemy), to turn the US over to Russia. Finally the populace of the US realize this and rise up against their leaders. Obama, being the commander in chief of the US military immediately deploys his troops to suppress the population while he's handing over the daily administration to Stalin (who still lives, because cunning plan etcetc.).

    Well, guess what. Your average GI Joe is a citizen of the United States and probably has a family living in this country of some sort. I am not saying, that GI Joe is an intelligent person (haha, US educational system), but he's got family and friends living in this country. So, when GI Joe gets told by Comrade Obama to get in his A-10 and bomb the living shit out of site A with his 30 mm's of death, while site A happens to be in Aurora, Colorado (picked for no particular reason), the city he grew up in, it'll almost certainly generate second thoughts in Joe.

    And I am not making this up. Look at Northern Africa in the last two years. Those rebels had almost nothing to start with, but suddenly they were all riding around in (stylish) Toyota Pick-Ups with mounted Heavy Machine Guns and shit. A little later they had sophisticated rocket launchers. Before you go :tinfoil: and say, they got it from the US or the EU, I'd say it might be true in some cases, but the largest parts of it by far came directly from the libyan, egyptian or syrian military (i.e. deserters).

    So, it really is a nonargument.

    It has been said several times in this thread, but to sum my post up: People have the freedom to own and bear arms in the US. Fair enough. But, do we have to give every John Doe out there the ability to generate a massive massacre at a whim?

    It's unavoidable in some cases (the latest case with a seemingly really motivated lunatic might be such a case), because you really can't make it impossible. But it would be pretty easy to make it a lot harder without giving up a single dime of :freedom:, that the US and its citizens have fought for about 240 years ago.

    Happy posting.

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
  •