Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 5:16am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,276 posts

If that's what he meant, he ought to have said that. As it stands, however, he said "There are no accidents with guns" and strongly infers that guns are only used to kill someone with intent.

You need to learn to read posts. You also need to learn that you can't flame your opponent for using straw men with a straw man. I actually said that that was what he meant and as he's a soldier he's always around people who, like him, either don't have guns or know how to use and maintain them, so it's not unreasonable. Now, for this...
You're trying to say that every time someone is killed by a firearm it is intentional, yet cars are totally inculpable of being used for intentional harm.

Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 5:18am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,276 posts

I've made that argument before too, and it was ignored. Not very surprising, considering most everyone who dares to voice an opinion on the subject either seems to be on the side of "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS HUUURRRRR" or "GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!!"

If you're referring to me, I will elaborate...
Guns kill the wrong people - you.
 

Posted Nov 15, '13 at 3:49pm

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

10,002 posts

Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?


There are no accidents with guns. In a car you can lose your grip, miss a turn, or not stoping in time.

With guns, you pull the trigger. Nice and easy. You do it meaning to take a life.
Many stories about "brave mans" who fight a burgler describe them pulling the gun, shooting the first suprised burgler,and then the fleeing other burgler. Sometime even more then one fleeing person.

It seems he read it correctly..unless I'm missing something.

As for the part with the car..from what dani is saying, he is essentially giving death by vehicle a pass because of accounts of accidents, but ignoring the fact that a) accidental gun death is a major thing, which means people need to be more properly trained in gun care b) there are cases of murder in which the car was the choice of weapon, per se.

Also, as a general society, we very very rarely ever give cars fault for the murders committed with them, yet guns are on the backlash of their bit.
 

Posted Nov 17, '13 at 7:02pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

Were you using a straw man or are you genuinely incapable of reading a post fully?

As already pointed out, I have no issue when it comes to reading what others post. I am also baffled where my alleged straw-man argument came from, seeing as everything I mentioned was directly in response to something he's said. Perhaps you misunderstand what a straw-man argument is, so you just toss it out there.

If you have nothing to contribute to this debate other than your nonconstructive posts, maybe it would be best to take a breather elsewhere in the forums.
 

Posted Nov 19, '13 at 11:02pm

Pazx

Pazx

6,123 posts

Opinions on this?

While I don't necessarily agree with it all, the amount of people writing it off as "trolling" or "demented" is quite terrifying in truth.

@Car vs gun debate: cars are a necessity and serve a purpose other than grievous bodily harm.

 

Posted Nov 20, '13 at 12:13am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, being no longer necessary to a secure state is hereby nullified.


Will never pass, and is going overboard. People should be able to pursue ownership of a firearm if they wish and are responsible enough to handle it.

The production and sale of new firearms, being defined as a rifle, pistol, or other gun, will be disallowed until a time in which the number of firearms in circulation is equal to 50% of the population as determined by the Census.


Way too specific. Where's the reasoning that having an amount of guns equal to 50% of the population in legal circulation will do anything?

No gun may reside in the same building as anyone who has failed a mental health evaluation, as performed by a medical professional, as approved by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).


Too invasive, unable to be enforced, and unspecific. What does "failed a mental health evaluation" mean? Are we all going to be forced to have them? Will the person/people who failed them be identified? It's unworkable.

A mental health examination, as performed by a medical professional approved by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) must be passed in order to receive a firearms license.


I agree with there needing to be more measures in place, but what does "a mental health examination" mean? Also, mental illnesses come and go. Half of all Americans will have a mental illness at some point in their lifetime.

An income tax equal to 4% of an individualâs income will be assessed by all gun owners. In states which were at any point in time a part of the Confederate States of America, this tax shall be equal to 10% of an individualâs income. Taxes levied under this amendment shall be appropriated in equal portions to programs to expand Affirmative Action programs and begin to pay reparations to the descendants of African slaves.


Uh, no. The past is the past, and inflaming old issues is begging for trouble. 4% income tax is also ridiculous, 10% even more so.

Any person making the choice to own a firearm must carry $250,000 worth of liability insurance for each weapon owned. This insurance must be provided by a publicly owned insurance company to be established.


All this does is seek to exclude the poor, from what I can see...

All firearms must be retrofitted with both a global positioning transmitter as well as a fingerprint activated locking mechanism. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a fine, prison time, and forfeiture of the privilege of firearm ownership.


This is actually a pretty good idea I think, especially the fingerprint scanner. Though what to do with all the guns in circulation would be an issue.

The National Rifle Association, Michigan Militia, and other âgun rightsâ groups shall be considered terrorist operations.


SGT, did you write this petition? I'll just say this: free speech.

United States Marshals will be randomly placed at various âsporting venues,â where a firearm could be otherwise legally discharged. This could include publicly or privately owned venues where the following (but not limited to) take place: hunting areas, shooting ranges.


Er, who's going to be paying all these newly hired marshals?

In a calendar year, no person may buy more than 100 rounds of ammunition


Completely and totally eliminates any sporting use of a gun.

Assault rifles, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons, as well as those not fitted with GPS and trigger locking devices will be immediately seized by the government. The owner will be compensated fair market value of the weapon, minus the cost of the seizure operation.


"Minus the cost of the seizure operation." Great. So people will pay the government to take their guns. I shall see you two weeks from now when we're in a civil war.

President Obama will establish a Secretary of Firearm management. This office will have final say over future gun regulation to prevent against rampant innovation that was not forseen by the second amendment.


Would need more detail, but okay.

Overall, 1/10. A few of the suggestions are good, but the rest are like throwing dynamite into a stockpile of gunpowder while in a personal submarine two kilometers underwater.
 

Posted Nov 22, '13 at 5:33pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

@Car vs gun debate: cars are a necessity and serve a purpose other than grievous bodily harm.

No, cars are a luxury. I always balk at people that say otherwise.

Also, real quick:
Guns serve their purpose as both a weapon and tool. Same for crossbows, longbows, slings, atlatls, etc. Simply because people focus on the most negative aspect of these tools does not mean they are solely for such purposes.
 

Posted Nov 23, '13 at 11:02pm

pHacon

pHacon

1,939 posts

No accidents with guns? Not quite. I've seen an idiot shoot his buddy at a range when he twisted his weapon to the side after a hangfire. It wasn't intentional, just careless.

And since this is about the US, I'd like to just put something about the second amendment right quick.

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.


See, there's a comma there. The one in bold. It's not about people being allowed to have weapons to form a militia. It's the people, in contrast with the militia. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of the people to do so for defense against the militia. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights had just gotten out of a war with a tyrannical state militia. After all, the Bill of Rights as a whole is concerned mainly about protecting people from the government.

So basically, we have it because our government was founded out of mistrust of government.

Unconstitutional laws aren't laws, anyway.
 

Posted Dec 10, '13 at 4:59pm

SportShark

SportShark

1,108 posts

Let me set a scene-
It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.

 

Posted Dec 12, '13 at 11:40pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,863 posts

Let me set a scene-
It's the middle of the night and and 5 sky-high crack heads break into your home to rape your wife and knife you to death. What would you do? Would you just lie there and let them ruin your life? Or would you legally and honorably defend what is rightfully YOURS! I wouldn't hesitate and I wouldn't regret it.

Or may be you can control this drug habit of your society, and all this unnecessary freedom.
Yoou guys, you make me laugh, you make a problem yourselves and then complain about it.i have a blood feud or something.
Also, even in that case, a revolver is enough, I don't need big guns unless i have a blood feud or something.
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!