Posted July 27 2016 - 08:19 PM
- Chigurh likes this
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
"If guns the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" Don Boys
"Why do you trust the government with automatic weapons but not honest citizens?" D. Boys
"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't prison government sanction kidnapping?" D. Boys
Posted July 27 2016 - 08:47 PM
17:23-18:41 26:41-27:47 This is certainly not what I expected.
Posted July 27 2016 - 11:20 PM
People who fear guns more than they fear those who would misuse them, those types of people are simply looking for someone else to give them a false sense of security, by being dependent upon others to protect them, like police, law enforcement and military. A serious criminal on the streets will always have other criminals to aquire a firearm from, on the other hand someone who follows all the rules, gets mental health examinations and undergoes a background check, has all sorts of hurdles to pass in order to get one.It's a mad world we live in, when someone who simply wants to protect themselves and their families and perhaps hunt, is made to go to more lengths to get a weapon, than those who disregard laws and background checks and often are convicted felons to begin with. If someone wanted to buy one off the streets and could come up with the money? They could probably get it in a night or two, but folks like ourselves have a waiting period and have to pay extra fees, insurance and all a crook has to do is pay for the cost of the gun itself. Guns are one of the mosy highly regulated products out there, yet the only solution those who want to ban or restrict guns, is to make it harder for those who aren't prone to violence and follow the law to the letter to buy one, than someone who ignores and by passes those requirements. Isn't that some shit?
- Pressed Rat, FritzDaKatx2, Ranger Smith and 1 other like this
Posted July 28 2016 - 02:19 AM
The video doesn’t present anything that hasn’t already been addressed numerous times already here - hell do we have to go through it all again, can’t you just read the other gun issue threads?
I mean why do the anti-control advocates keep presenting the same old guff when it’s all been covered already.
The US Constitution doesn’t stand in way of gun control
Not a ban
Make your own gun – not a problem in places with gun control
Switzerland – very different system
War of independence – French army navy and money deciding factor
The alternative weapon argument – myth that Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other people.
International statistics actually works against pro-gun advocates
But of course people are going to highlight mass shootings to call people scumbags for doing so isn’t objective
Emotions argument – one of the main arguments used by pro-gun advocates to promote guns is fear
Suicides are taken into account
I have no fucking idea why the Wild West is bought up different time and circumstance.
Anyway if you want to pursue this I’d like to apologise to all the regulars in advance for the repetition.
- Mattekat likes this
Posted July 28 2016 - 02:20 AM
Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.
US –2011 - 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
France - 3.00
Germany – 1.10
Switzerland - 3.04
Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Posted July 28 2016 - 02:25 AM
Why are you so frightened you feel you need a gun for protection?
Posted July 28 2016 - 04:00 AM
Who said he is frightened? Things like home invasions happen all the time. It's about protecting oneself should a situation such as this arise, not about being frightened. Why do you always feel you have to resort to cheap, ad hominem attacks. It just shows how inept you are at having an intelligent discussion with people who have different views than your own.
Why are you so frightened you feel you need a gun for protection?
Edited by Pressed Rat, July 28 2016 - 04:05 AM.
- ElEyeJaw and Eyeamme12 like this
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
Posted July 28 2016 - 04:36 AM
Who said he is frightened?
He said - when someone who simply wants to protect themselves and their families- and I presumed he was including himself and is family but you are right I shouldn’t have presumed.
I’ll rephrase – why do you think people are so frightened they feeling the neeed to get a gun for protection.?
Things like home invasions happen all the time.
Can you give me the statistics to back that up?
It's about protecting oneself should a situation such as this arise, not about being frightened.
But if people are getting a gun for protection they must to some degree be afraid otherwise they would not feel like they needed a gun for protection.
Posted July 28 2016 - 05:31 AM
We already have gun control.
You already have restrictions on who can be armed, not everyone is allowed to own guns, this has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The militias were for the purpose of protecting the U.S government as we had no standing army and were to be well regulated as to structure and armament.
The French and her allies allowed us to defeat the British and her allies, not the militias. The militias fell apart as the war drug on:
"The fervor of the early days in the reorganized militias wore off in the long grind of an eight-year war. Now the right to elect their own officers was used to demand that the men not serve away from their state. Men evaded service, bought substitutes to go for them as in the old days, and had to be bribed with higher and higher bounties to join the effort - which is why Jefferson and Samuel Adams called them so expensive. As wartime inflation devalued the currency, other pledges had to be offered, including land grants and the promise of 'a healthy slave' at the end of the war. Some men would take a bounty and not show up. Or they would show up for a while, desert, and then, when they felt the need for another bounty, sign up again in a different place.... This practice was common enough to have its own technical term - 'bounty jumping'."
Just as freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything at any time, so the right to bear arms does not mean everyone is granted that right or that any type of arms may be owned by private citizens without heavy regulation or denial.
The argument about the right to protect yourself is no argument at all as no one denies that you have a right to protect yourself.
Guns are easy to make...so what? No one is proposing that all guns be confiscated so how are criminals who make their own guns going to be the only ones with guns?
As far as cross cultural comparisons, is this guy saying that we don't have a problem with guns being used for criminal activities in the U.S. because our culture is different?
Mass shootings........so if I use a high capacity, high velocity, high fire rate assault weapon instead of a six shot .38 cal handgun..it's the same thing. We should allow these assault weapons and six shooters to be owned by private citizens as they are "basically" the same thing. I can't kill more people faster, with an assault weapon then with a single shot target pistol. Allow them both.
There is no proof that mass shooters chose their targets based on gun free zones.
Some gun control laws don't work therefore we should have no gun control laws. People still use guns to kill people so laws don't work, they will only lead to all guns being outlawed.
Some traffic laws don't work therefore we should have no traffic laws. People still speed even though it is against the law, therefore all traffic laws should be repealed. Traffic laws will only result in none us being allowed to drive at all.
Private citizens stopping mass shootings is ambiguous (Washington Post) at best and irrelevant as no one is proposing that all guns be taken away from all citizens.
His last part criticizes people for saying that they think increased gun control will save lives...but they can't prove it, but earlier he did the same thing with mass shootings, armed citizens will help prevent mass shootings, but he can't prove it.
In the end his arguments fall completely apart as no one is advocating that all guns be taken away, he introduces a red herring so that he can still have his assault rifles and no background checks.
We already restrict automatic weapons, certain explosives, biological, and chemical weapons...and we still allow guns for sport, and self defense so what's this guy ranting about anyway?????
- Balbus and Mr.Writer like this
"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"