Relax, you're finally the legal age to have a beer.
Relax, you're finally the legal age to have a beer.
and carry a concealed pistol.
Isn't it just ****ing terrifying that you are allowed to get wasted and buy a gun at the same age? Talk abou giving a weapon and a bottle of courage to actually use it.
A couple of wars ago when 18 and 19 y/o american kids were on their way to Iraq and stopping by here before the Gulf we got a demo of that irony. Took me a while to realise why they made such a big issue - photographs and all - about being able to drink a beer on the street.
Yeah when I first moved to the USA I wasn't old enough to drink there, which was weird. Fortunately thanks to my job, pretty much every club I ever went in gave me free booze. 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/ ... tion/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
This highlights my #1 problem with the gun control legislation in the making. An assault weapons ban and ten round magazines does almost nothing to combat handgun violence.
This highlights my #1 problem with the gun control legislation in the making. An assault weapons ban and ten round magazines does almost nothing to combat handgun violence.
and that doesn't make you wonder what the government's true motives are for banning the only types of weapons that could be used against them?
I see it much less sinister than that. Honestly, rifles will do nothing against our military. I think this is just media sensationalism and tunnel vision on the part of the government. One rifle related incident happens (with handguns also involved) and all the sudden rifles are responsible for all firearm violence. We know that's not true, they are completely missing the point.
They don't want other people to shoot at each other in schools or other public places in completely unantagonized and unprovoked shootings?
Every other country has relatively strict gun laws and doesn't have conspiracy theorists against "THE GOVNMENT GONNA DONE MURDER US AND STEAL OUR RIGHTS!".
Why is America the only place that thinks having crazies that possess an object capable of murder at the slightest thought of anger or provokation to be a good idea?
Just because it's in your "Bill of Rights" doesn't mean it should be a right, especially considering it was written in a completely different era. It's like all those strange laws that prevent sex on a Tuesday between 6 and 7 PM during a full moon. Somebody thought it was important enough to be a law then, but now it's kinda irrelevant.
Gun rights should be along the same lines. 150 years ago it might have been relevant when there were cowboys needing to hold standoffs after a dispute in the Saloon... but now it's completely ridiculous. There's no saloons, cowboys, and disputes can be solved with words.
Feature of this post: I slipped in the word "saloon" without referring to a car like a British person. There's linguistic variety for you!
Every other country has relatively strict gun laws and doesn't have conspiracy theorists against "THE GOVNMENT GONNA DONE MURDER US AND STEAL OUR RIGHTS!".
Why is America the only place that thinks having crazies that possess an object capable of murder at the slightest thought of anger or provokation to be a good idea?
Just because it's in your "Bill of Rights" doesn't mean it should be a right, especially considering it was written in a completely different era. It's like all those strange laws that prevent sex on a Tuesday between 6 and 7 PM during a full moon. Somebody thought it was important enough to be a law then, but now it's kinda irrelevant.
Gun rights should be along the same lines. 150 years ago it might have been relevant when there were cowboys needing to hold standoffs after a dispute in the Saloon... but now it's completely ridiculous. There's no saloons, cowboys, and disputes can be solved with words.
Feature of this post: I slipped in the word "saloon" without referring to a car like a British person. There's linguistic variety for you!
No more saloons, but we have convenience stores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_WrjDsbO4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rysWX_WW89Y
So why has America managed to spiral into a land of convenience store shootings and senseless shootings of schools and other public places, whilst every other place in the world manages to just walk in, buy a pack of gum and leave peacefully?
I can only really think of 2 things:
1) Purchasing and acquiring weapons capable of instant murder is too easy.
2) Convenience stores and schools are the worlds most threatening and scary places in the whole world. Chocolate bars and books. Total fear.
I wonder which is more likely?
I can only really think of 2 things:
1) Purchasing and acquiring weapons capable of instant murder is too easy.
2) Convenience stores and schools are the worlds most threatening and scary places in the whole world. Chocolate bars and books. Total fear.
I wonder which is more likely?
Handguns and assault weapons are the issue here for the most part. Long barreled weapons with small ammo capacity are rarely used in mass attacks. People will be killed with knifes and pencils (believe me 
) at random, but it's the number of people that a single gun is able to kill quickly that is an issue.
Of course, a bomb will kill more people more quickly, and we don't have many problems with those (strangely in my opinion).
Yes, people must be given weapons of some sort so that they can't be mowed over by the military without a thought, but, with that being said, a typical rifle will be just about as effective as an assault rifle against the US military at this point. Yeah, they'd kill a few soldiers, but that's about it.
A massive armed march on Washington DC is the only way it will matter. I believe that that should be allowed to happen if something is incredibly wrong to the point that an unarmed march makes no difference.
On the Sandy Hook shootings, I have only a few reasons to believe that it was real. I also have almost no reasons to believe that it wasn't. The YouTube videos are something in and of themselves, that probably should be ignored, but the number of them should be a testament to something which I'm about to explain simply for my sake, because I feel this way, and it bothers me greatly.
Seeing how poorly the event was covered by the media makes no difference to my opinion. The arguments and funding to and against gun control (and other issues like abortion, gay unions and marriages, ect) here is amazing, and it would be hard to discount the idea that somebody wouldn't try do stage something for their cause. Sadly, it is very difficult for me to trust the media as much as they try to get out their opinions rather than simply report. On the same token, it is also very difficult for me to trust my elected representatives due to the amount of money given to them each year in order to be elected. Basically, candidates are bribed into their beliefs by money. It's a very sad situation, but it would be naive not to think that Sandy Hook could have been staged. I don't believe that it was myself, but I also have a hard time believing it was real as well. There is nobody that I can trust sadly. Nobody connected to Sandy Hook I have any reason to believe, because I will never know the truth for myself.
Being that Sandy Hook only took place in a few classrooms and all who were there in them died, we will never know the truth. I just don't trust anybody enough to believe them. I'm not saying this because of the YouTube videos which are likely reaching for evidence; I'm saying this because of the way in which I feel about this world and this culture.
Don't feel too strongly about anything; it only clouds your mind and decisions. We have an epidemic of this here.
(stream of consciousness is over now
)
) at random, but it's the number of people that a single gun is able to kill quickly that is an issue.Of course, a bomb will kill more people more quickly, and we don't have many problems with those (strangely in my opinion).
Yes, people must be given weapons of some sort so that they can't be mowed over by the military without a thought, but, with that being said, a typical rifle will be just about as effective as an assault rifle against the US military at this point. Yeah, they'd kill a few soldiers, but that's about it.
A massive armed march on Washington DC is the only way it will matter. I believe that that should be allowed to happen if something is incredibly wrong to the point that an unarmed march makes no difference.
On the Sandy Hook shootings, I have only a few reasons to believe that it was real. I also have almost no reasons to believe that it wasn't. The YouTube videos are something in and of themselves, that probably should be ignored, but the number of them should be a testament to something which I'm about to explain simply for my sake, because I feel this way, and it bothers me greatly.
Seeing how poorly the event was covered by the media makes no difference to my opinion. The arguments and funding to and against gun control (and other issues like abortion, gay unions and marriages, ect) here is amazing, and it would be hard to discount the idea that somebody wouldn't try do stage something for their cause. Sadly, it is very difficult for me to trust the media as much as they try to get out their opinions rather than simply report. On the same token, it is also very difficult for me to trust my elected representatives due to the amount of money given to them each year in order to be elected. Basically, candidates are bribed into their beliefs by money. It's a very sad situation, but it would be naive not to think that Sandy Hook could have been staged. I don't believe that it was myself, but I also have a hard time believing it was real as well. There is nobody that I can trust sadly. Nobody connected to Sandy Hook I have any reason to believe, because I will never know the truth for myself.
Being that Sandy Hook only took place in a few classrooms and all who were there in them died, we will never know the truth. I just don't trust anybody enough to believe them. I'm not saying this because of the YouTube videos which are likely reaching for evidence; I'm saying this because of the way in which I feel about this world and this culture.
Don't feel too strongly about anything; it only clouds your mind and decisions. We have an epidemic of this here.
(stream of consciousness is over now
)Getting weapons will always be easy for criminals its what they do. The only thing gun laws can do is make it more difficult for people who follow laws to protect themselves against people who don't. The police could not be there to protect the store clerk. The store clerk didn't even have time to solve the dispute with words before he was executed for $100. I am the first line of defense for my own safety, why would I use anything but the most useful tool to protect myself, especially knowing that the most dangerous person I could face will have also have a gun?
Your arguments against guns basically tell me that I should die whenever some crazy person decides I should, and I should be prevented from taking reasonable measures to save my own life. I happen to believe it is a life worth keeping.
Criminals carry instant murder machines. I carry an instant life-saving machine. Same shit.
Your arguments against guns basically tell me that I should die whenever some crazy person decides I should, and I should be prevented from taking reasonable measures to save my own life. I happen to believe it is a life worth keeping.
Criminals carry instant murder machines. I carry an instant life-saving machine. Same shit.
Murder is murder. No matter how you try to spin it.
Murder is an unlawful killing. Self defence is legal so long as an equal threat is given.
Of course, it's also a gathering of crows
This argument is conveniently supported by the fact that as soon as a law-abiding person murders someone they become a 'criminal'.
And what proportion of guns used in criminal acts are stolen from homes where they were legally owned?
Getting guns in the UK isn't easy. Because they're relatively scarce they are very expensive even if you know where to get them, and ammunition is similarly expensive. Yes you get the occasional armed gang member but most aren't. Most 'guns' used in armed robberies are replicas, and most of those that are real guns are stolen legally-owned shotguns.
Outlawing private gun ownership does work.
not in the UK apparently where violent crime is 3.5 times higher per 100,00 than the US. It is by far the most violent country in the EU. If I lived there I would definitely carry my pistol, except I would be thrown in jail. What better place for criminals than one where people are imprisoned for defending themselves from criminals?
And saying that 350,000,000 guns should be stolen by the government because they might be stolen by criminals first should sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c82_1357146088
And saying that 350,000,000 guns should be stolen by the government because they might be stolen by criminals first should sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c82_1357146088
Getting drunk at a bar and having a wrestling match is drastically different to going and shooting someone in "self defence".
Violent crime in the US has decreased 50% since 1992. The country is safer now than it has been in a very long time. Since 1992, tens of millions of people have applied for and obtained permits to carry concealed pistols. In Texas, almost 2,000 people per DAY apply for a permit (many don't qualify). The more people own guns, the less likely it is that they will have to use them as violent crime continues to drop. That is exactly the situation George Washington described when he wrote about the importance of an armed society.
Stop the presses guys.
A shooting every day means violent crime is dropping.
I also suppose you advocate giving everyone nuclear weapons to prevent against nuclear strikes because everyone will be afraid of the retributions?
A shooting every day means violent crime is dropping.
I also suppose you advocate giving everyone nuclear weapons to prevent against nuclear strikes because everyone will be afraid of the retributions?
I'm being reasonable, so I expect the same from you. And yes, a shooting every day is still a 50% reduction in the last 20 years. One or more of our 313,000,000+ citizens commits violent acts every day. Almost all of the assaults and murders are committed in high density urban areas, of which the US has more than any other nation on Earth and yet we do not have the highest rates of violent crime in the First World.
I didn't bring up the comparison between the US and UK violent crime rates, but I entertained the notion that they could be meaningfully compared to show Kev that it doesn't benefit his argument. In reality, it is meaningless to compare crime stats because the laws and many other factors like population are totally different. It may be better to compare the UK to other European countries like Germany and Switzerland. The UK has more homicides per capita than Germany which has not banned guns (entirely) and far more than Switzerland which requires citizens to have guns. I don't know how many more times I can show guns are not the problem. I would like to move the discussion to means of really reducing violence but only if we can move past this point.
I think people should be more wary of anti-social people and inform the appropriate people more frequently. I don't know about the whole armed guards in school thing. There were always one or more armed police officers at my school and it made me feel safer the few times I even thought about it. I've heard people say that if it's good enough for Obama's kids then it's good enough for ours and I think there may be something to that. In the end the parents and school district should vote and decide if it is worth the money to have a police liaison at the school.
I didn't bring up the comparison between the US and UK violent crime rates, but I entertained the notion that they could be meaningfully compared to show Kev that it doesn't benefit his argument. In reality, it is meaningless to compare crime stats because the laws and many other factors like population are totally different. It may be better to compare the UK to other European countries like Germany and Switzerland. The UK has more homicides per capita than Germany which has not banned guns (entirely) and far more than Switzerland which requires citizens to have guns. I don't know how many more times I can show guns are not the problem. I would like to move the discussion to means of really reducing violence but only if we can move past this point.
I think people should be more wary of anti-social people and inform the appropriate people more frequently. I don't know about the whole armed guards in school thing. There were always one or more armed police officers at my school and it made me feel safer the few times I even thought about it. I've heard people say that if it's good enough for Obama's kids then it's good enough for ours and I think there may be something to that. In the end the parents and school district should vote and decide if it is worth the money to have a police liaison at the school.
The gun laws are the easiest thing to change. Shootings and murder are a combination of 3 things. Access to weaponry, A persons psychology, and crime.
You can't eliminate people that have psychiatric breaks.. they happen all over the place, especially in places of large unemployment and poverty like the USA. Plus it's random, and its not like when a person goes crazy a giant red light signals that they are crazy.
Crime is everywhere. To expect to control and eliminate crime entirely is something that only happens in Gotham City. Where there are people, crime will be attempted.
The only thing that can really be controlled is access to guns. Yes, people that really really really want them will get them, but to allow any person to go, get a permit, get a gun, and own one is just pouring gasoline on the fire. To say that everyone having them is safer is a crazy statement.
If its criminal to acquire and own a gun, that will discourage/eliminate the casual joe that goes and picks a gun up for "self defense" that doesn't properly know how to use it or is careless in actually securing the weapon when not in use.
Plus, as a benefit.. the poor people that think that robbing a convenience store is a quick way to make a few dollars won't be able to get a gun as easy, therefore making their grandoise heist just that little bit more difficult (and expensive/unobtainable as illegal things usually have inflated costs purely based around the fact it's illegal).
To give everyone a gun for "safety" is like giving every country a nuke for "safety" or having sex in favour of abstinence.
You can't eliminate people that have psychiatric breaks.. they happen all over the place, especially in places of large unemployment and poverty like the USA. Plus it's random, and its not like when a person goes crazy a giant red light signals that they are crazy.
Crime is everywhere. To expect to control and eliminate crime entirely is something that only happens in Gotham City. Where there are people, crime will be attempted.
The only thing that can really be controlled is access to guns. Yes, people that really really really want them will get them, but to allow any person to go, get a permit, get a gun, and own one is just pouring gasoline on the fire. To say that everyone having them is safer is a crazy statement.
If its criminal to acquire and own a gun, that will discourage/eliminate the casual joe that goes and picks a gun up for "self defense" that doesn't properly know how to use it or is careless in actually securing the weapon when not in use.
Plus, as a benefit.. the poor people that think that robbing a convenience store is a quick way to make a few dollars won't be able to get a gun as easy, therefore making their grandoise heist just that little bit more difficult (and expensive/unobtainable as illegal things usually have inflated costs purely based around the fact it's illegal).
To give everyone a gun for "safety" is like giving every country a nuke for "safety" or having sex in favour of abstinence.
You haven't made any points about gun control that I have not already addressed. Like I said, guns are demonstratively and statistically not the problem, so our energy is better used coming up with other solutions.
So.. how do you want to detect and regulate people who have psychiatric breaks to make sure they don't shoot stuff up? Because that's the other option to control gun violence.
You either make guns harder to acquire and illegal to possess, or you eliminate disputes, arguments, disagreements and any conflicts, along with psychological issues in people that cause shootings... And crime, don't forget about eliminating crime entirely too.
Which one is easier and realistic? The only way to eliminate psychological issues, crime and disputes, arguments or conflict is to simply eliminate humans. The moment you have even 1 human remaining, he will develop a psychological issue and become mentally insane.
However, reducing the number of guns is much much easier problem to solve, and better for our futures than mass murder of our entire species.
You either make guns harder to acquire and illegal to possess, or you eliminate disputes, arguments, disagreements and any conflicts, along with psychological issues in people that cause shootings... And crime, don't forget about eliminating crime entirely too.
Which one is easier and realistic? The only way to eliminate psychological issues, crime and disputes, arguments or conflict is to simply eliminate humans. The moment you have even 1 human remaining, he will develop a psychological issue and become mentally insane.
However, reducing the number of guns is much much easier problem to solve, and better for our futures than mass murder of our entire species.
It is logistically and constitutionally impossible for the government to remove all 350,000,000+ guns without sparking a civil war, so if your goal is to save lives you're going about it the wrong way.
Mass murder and citizen disarmament go hand in hand, with Nazi Germany being the best example. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure it didn't happen here because it happened to them before the revolutionary war. If we don't learn from history and keep soothing ourselves with fake safety we are doomed to repeat our worst mistakes.
It is the job of the legislators to solve problems without removing our rights even if that would be the easy thing to do. Since violent crime and murders have already dropped drastically over the last 20 years and continue to drop today I would reason the the best thing they can do is allow that trend to continue and do nothing. If the policies already in place have been successful, why interfere?
Mass murder and citizen disarmament go hand in hand, with Nazi Germany being the best example. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure it didn't happen here because it happened to them before the revolutionary war. If we don't learn from history and keep soothing ourselves with fake safety we are doomed to repeat our worst mistakes.
It is the job of the legislators to solve problems without removing our rights even if that would be the easy thing to do. Since violent crime and murders have already dropped drastically over the last 20 years and continue to drop today I would reason the the best thing they can do is allow that trend to continue and do nothing. If the policies already in place have been successful, why interfere?
Tragedy and Video Game Violence
(270 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG