Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Jounichi1983]

That was done with out a single firearm as I recall, wasn't it? 44 dead, 58 injured, not a single gun involved, right?

My point remains unchanged, teach responsibility and it will replicate thru future generations

Except that your point implied that such responsibility was being taught before 40 years ago, which is when the incident took place and lots of people still died. It was the single largest mass-killing of children in the U.S., and "teaching responsibility" had nothing to do with it.

[Seranthor]

Except that your point implied that such responsibility was being taught before 40 years ago, which is when the incident took place and lots of people still died. It was the single largest mass-killing of children in the U.S., and "teaching responsibility" had nothing to do with it.

how many other mass killings from that time occured... if you want to dismiss my contention because of one example that is your right. and using your very own contention that one example negates everything else I can say I'm alive today because I had and knew how to use a gun when it counted. Does that mean everyone should have a gun at all times? Hell no.

[Deleted]

how many other mass killings from that time occured...

So you're saying that the solution is conscription and mandatory military service ? It worked during that time. But I'm pretty certain that it's way more freedom-infringing than gun control.

[Seranthor]

So you're saying that the solution is conscription and mandatory military service ? It worked during that time. But I'm pretty certain that it's way more freedom-infringing than gun control.

Not certain where you made that up, nor, do I truly care at this point.

[Deleted]

Not certain where you made that up, nor, do I truly care at this point.

I'll admit, I made it up. Sorry for the agressive argumentation. Still, having your population trained for war promotes responsible gun use and in turn would reduce how often these events happen. I speculate that the fact your nation had used conscription to participate in wars during that period is the reason why they didn't have so many school shootings. That and not glorifying guns, which is linked anyway.

EDIT: By "made it up", I meant "made a guess and ended up being wrong because I had not done proper research". Lesson learned I suppose.

[Seranthor]

I'll admit, I made it up. Sorry for the agressive argumentation. Still, having your population trained for war promotes responsible gun use and in turn would reduce how often these events happen. I speculate that the fact your nation had used conscription to participate in wars during that period is the reason why they didn't have so many school shootings. That and not glorifying guns, which is linked anyway.

Wasn't' aggressive, was flat dishonest, I prefer honest and aggressive over dishonesty.

[Deleted]

What part of this was sarcasm and what part wasn't ? Because "George Washington established the free world" sounds like signature material.

And plenty of people would like to live in an Empire if it meant they lived better. cf. Napoleon III, democratically elected leader of France after the Springtime of Nations, and who established himself Emperor without too much contestation. You know what the main complaint of the people living in horribly tyrannical China is ? That their local governments are corrupt and expropriate them to repay their debts. Not that they don't have a say in their country's decision-making process.

So in other words you want to be a slave. Good for you. Many of us don't, so don't try to push for policies that undermine our freedom.

No, it is far more than semantics. The American Revolution was won by convincing the British that they were financially better off letting the colonies be independent than continue pressing, especially since if they distributed the greater part of their forces, and England was then attacked, they wouldn't be able to help for several months. Remember that the colonies were far from England's only concern at that point in history.

Semantics. George Washington was right. If you want to preserve peace then you need to be prepared for war. He proved it. The American revolution set the world free. Just because there were many factors involved doesn't mean that he wasn't a decisive one, which he was.

The U.S. didn't just miraculously happen. It was fought for then built up over time.



---------- Post added 2012-12-22 at 10:50 AM ----------

All indications show that, had he not put the good of the country above being a member of a political party, he would have been a Federalist. Which meant that, relative to the middle, he favored large national government over the states, and the power of the constitution over the bill of rights.



Would you like me to talk to you about American imperialism? It is, in fact, very real.

Yeah it is because the U.S. is addicted to oil and cheap goods. It has to end.

The government needs to be strong but its powers need to be limited. We established that already.

[Deleted]

So in other words you want to be a slave. Good for you. Many of us don't, so don't try to push for policies that undermine our freedom.

I don't want to be a slave. I want a government who can make sure I'm not a slave and that I can live my life alright. People can be happy under a dictatorship, and in fact they were for hundreds of years. It's just that a democracy has way less chances of going tyrannical - do you need me to quote Churchill or something ?

The American revolution set the world free.

The apparent ignorance of this statement is enough to not let me take you seriously. Would you care to develop so as to brush away this hopefully deceiving appearance ?

[Seranthor]

I don't want to be a slave. I want a government who can make sure I'm not a slave and that I can live my life alright. People can be happy under a dictatorship, and in fact they were for hundreds of years. It's just that a democracy has way less chances of going tyrannical - do you need me to quote Churchill or something ?

The apparent ignorance of this statement is enough to not let me take you seriously. Would you care to develop so as to brush away this hopefully deceiving appearence ?

Why should we take you seriously, You've already admitted that you make it up as you go.

[Deleted]

By "made it up", I meant "made a guess and ended up being wrong because I had not done proper research". Lesson learned I suppose.

[Deleted]

I don't want to be a slave. I want a government who can make sure I'm not a slave and that I can live my life alright. People can be happy under a dictatorship...

That's such dangerously nuanced logic. People can be happy slaves? People can be happy when their future is decided for them?

You are condemning people to a life of fewer choices and untapped potential.

You will lose in the arena of ideas.

...and in fact they were for hundreds of years.

I'm sure they were very happy slaves never knowing the true meaning of life.

It's just that a democracy has way less chances of going tyrannical - do you need me to quote Churchill or something ?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Churchill wasn't a fan of socialism and found Islam to be a paralyzing religion.

The apparent ignorance of this statement is enough to not let me take you seriously. Would you care to develop so as to brush away this hopefully deceiving appearence ?

Empires don't like competition. The colonies becoming independent moved us all forward.

You remind me of a snake in how you cast doubt on even the simplest of things.

[Seranthor]

By "made it up", I meant "made a guess and ended up being wrong because I had not done proper research". Lesson learned I suppose.

you claimed I was for conscription and mandatory military service, when you had no basis in fact at all, not even the most bizarre interpretation of what I've said could lead anyone to make that leap. When you said it was a 'guess' I'll say that it was a rather biased, judgmental and uneducated guess, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt when you say it was a 'guess'.

edit: but now that you have me thinking about it... those that HAVE served in the military that I've dealt with are far more responsibile, respectful and more willing to help others, additionally, they have more respect for firearms and handle them more responsibly than those that haven't seen any military service. Continuing, serving in the miltary would give much needed job training to folks, and it could even help weed out those that need mental heath intervention, and could possibly even help with the issues of homelessness as well.

but, again, I'd have never thought of that until you brought it up.

[Deleted]

I'm sure they were very happy slaves never knowing the true meaning of life.

Who are you to decide how one should be happy ? This debate goes far beyond both of us.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Apparently you do need me to quote Churchill : "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried."

Empires don't like competition. The colonies becoming independent moved us all forward.

I still don't get it. How did you "free the world" exactly ? The influence on the French Revolution was at best limited, and it was pretty much null outside the West. Perhaps as a precedent for the independance of the colonies throughout the world ? Even then, the USA were just the first to free themselves, I'm sure there would have been someone else to rise up somewhere else.
In fact, since we're talking about slaves, there are historians who argue that slavery could have been abolished sooner if the colonies had remained British. How's that freeing the world ?

[Deleted]

Who are you to decide how one should be happy ? This debate goes far beyond both of us.

Apparently you do need me to quote Churchill : "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried."

I still don't get it. How did you "free the world" exactly ? The influence on the French Revolution was at best limited, and it was pretty much null outside the West. Perhaps as a precedent for the independance of the colonies throughout the world ? Even then, the USA were just the first to free themselves, I'm sure there would have been someone else to rise up somewhere else.
In fact, since we're talking about slaves, there are historians who argue that slavery could have been abolished sooner if the colonies had remained British. How's that freeing the world ?

The U.S. limited the power of government which forced people to be more self-sufficient. Until then people were ruled by autocratic kings and queens who didn't answer to anyone. The U.S. created a secular neutral government that kept religion and politics separate, and protected free speech. I could go on.

If a slave is happy then they've never known true happiness. They have still been robbed of the choice to be free. If they want to actually be a slave, feel free, but it still has to be a choice.

Democracies always descend into tyranny because 51% of the people can control the other 49%, and sooner or later the people vote for everyone else's money. It's just mob rule.

[Deleted]

The U.S. limited the power of government which forced people to be more self-sufficient.

You got me scratching my head on this one. They had socialism in the XVIIIth century ?

Until then people were ruled by autocratic kings and queens who didn't answer to anyone.

In France and Russia, sure. In Great Britain though, not so much. Don't know enough about Greater Austria and Prussia in that time period, though I believe the particularly violent religious conflicts had re-emphasized the power of the people, moreso in the Habsburger Empire than in the other one. The Ottoman Empire was already under the control of the janissaries, same deal for Egypt with the mamluks.

The U.S. created a secular neutral government that kept religion and politics separate, and protected free speech. I could go on.

Except they were only the first to do so, Europeans had been talking about it for decades and would have probably done it all the same. There's a reason you learned about the French Revolution in school even though it happened on a continent that is thousands of kilometers away. The ideas it promoted had been lingering through the whole century and the conditions in 1789 France just lit the fuse. Nobody really cared about that British colony that had broken off and established the first modern democracy.

[FusedMass]

I never personally knew why a person needed to have an assault weapon. The NRA aren't the same people behind that group also own a company that sells firearms. They're most popular one being assault rifles. I can understand the need to have a gun. But why a weapon that's designed to shoot the most bullets in the smallest amount of time. I'm speaking sincerely when I cant find a reason a person would need to have this handy.

Even Mitt a Republican banned the sale of assault rifles when he was Gov but quickly back tracked when seeking NRA endorsement. Most gun owners are safe and dependable but can we really just ignore the mass killings each and every other week because it would be too much to seek a stronger control on those owning rifles. It's not as if we're removing the right to have weapons.

[GreatOak]

I never personally knew why a person needed to have an assault weapon. The NRA aren't the same people behind that group also own a company that sells firearms. They're most popular one being assault rifles. I can understand the need to have a gun. But why a weapon that's designed to shoot the most bullets in the smallest amount of time. I'm speaking sincerely when I cant find a reason a person would need to have this handy.

Even Mitt a Republican banned the sale of assault rifles when he was Gov but quickly back tracked when seeking NRA endorsement. Most gun owners are safe and dependable but can we really just ignore the mass killings each and every other week because it would be too much to seek a stronger control on those owning rifles. It's not as if we're removing the right to have weapons.

I really hate the buzzword "Assault Weapon". People who don't know about guns shouldn't be banning them or advocating as much.

Case in point

[kittysox]

I really hate the buzzword "Assault Weapon". People who don't know about guns shouldn't be banning them or advocating as much.

Case in point

assault rifle
noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Origin:
1970–75

Hate it all you want, but using the term assault weapon to describe a civilian model of a military weapon is correct.

[FusedMass]

assault rifle
noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
Origin:
1970–75

Hate it all you want, but using the term assault weapon to describe a civilian model of a military weapon is correct.

Thank you. It appears I am correct. I sincerely do not understand it. Even some use the term military assault weapon. The weapon is still designed to kill or shoot the most bullets in the least amount of time. Why would anyone need a gun that carry's loads of unlimited ammo. What can you possibly be shooting at to require that much ammo?

I thought people who hunt use a long ranged rifle and fire a few shots. Not blasting away the entire block. I just cant see the need for a person to walk around with this weapon. Even if its locked up and chained away. When are you really going to grab that gun and use it for that? I'm not in favor of removing all guns from people.

I just never saw the point of this weapon.

[kittysox]

Thank you. It appears I am correct. I sincerely do not understand it. Even some use the term military assault weapon. The weapon is still designed to kill or shoot the most bullets in the least amount of time. Why would anyone need a gun that carry's loads of unlimited ammo. What can you possibly be shooting at to require that much ammo?

I thought people who hunt use a long ranged rifle and fire a few shots. Not blasting away the entire block. I just cant see the need for a person to walk around with this weapon. Even if its locked up and chained away. When are you really going to grab that gun and use it for that? I'm not in favor of removing all guns from people.

I just never saw the point of this weapon.

I am originally from Texas and let me tell you that I do understand shooting as sport at a range or something but a lot of gun owners are overcome with an irrational fear of "something" which leads them to stockpile as many weapons and as much ammunition as they can possibly obtain. And the point of those weapons is very simple they are designed from the beginning to inflict the maximum amount of damage and human casualties as possible from a shoulder fired small arms weapon in a war setting.