OT: Safety is an Illusion

[zk]

I think that we should have gun laws like the U.K.’s. I think we could have those and still comply with the second amendment.

I’d like to hear other views.

[Vod-Vil]

The Anti-Gun Male
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

[ucodegen]

[quote=KIBU]Today’s shooting: 2 firefighters dead + 1 more ir”responsible” gun user killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.%5B/quote%5D The shooter was a felon. He was not legally able to own a gun (used ‘was’ because he no longer is). Any change in gun laws would have done absolutely nothing. In many ways, this shooting shows what is wrong with assuming that gun laws will prevent it. His gun ownership was already illegal and against existing laws. Felons, particularly those currently on probation, can NOT own any firearm.

The shooter was not afraid of dying to pull off his shooting. That means that even a penalty of death for possessing a firearm would not have stopped him. How much more strict a ‘gun law’ can you make than the death penalty?

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]Also i can prove former vp Cheney wouldn’t have shot his pal in the ass w a gun ban.[/quote]No you can’t. All ‘high and mighty people’ always write exception for themselves in any prohibition. It is the nature of a politician or anyone in some form of power.

[zk]

[quote=Vod-Vil]The Anti-Gun Male
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp%5B/quote%5D

I know that a lot of right wingers (men and women) consider themselves manly and badass. The right-wing noise machine has been playing to their perceptions of themselves for a long time. Successfully. They love to talk about liberals as pussies and themselves as powerful. This article plays right along. Enjoy it. Jack off to it, even. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s only your perception of yourself and of others, not reality.

It’s easy to paint the opposition with a broad brush and to resort to emotional bluster. Any retard can do that.

I’m for guns. I have one myself. I’m against gun laws that allow just about anybody to have a gun. The U.K.’s laws seem, to me, to be pretty effective at keeping the wrong kinds of guns away from the wrong kinds of people. Certainly more effective than ours.

Again, I’d like to hear other views. So far I’ve heard nothing but irrelevant nonsense.

I’d like to hear why people think that the U.K.’s gun laws would not be good for our country.

[KIBU]

1 police dead, 1 bystander dead. One ir”responsible” gunman killed again, Christmas Eve shooting:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-among-2-fatally-shot-houston-174608152.html

New NRA’s smart ass advise for Americans: Arm all Bystanders of America. Guns don’t kill police, only people kill police….

[ucodegen]

[quote=zk]I know that a lot of right wingers (men and women) consider themselves manly and badass. The right-wing noise machine has been playing to their perceptions of themselves for a long time. Successfully. They love to talk about liberals as pussies and themselves as powerful. This article plays right along. Enjoy it. Jack off to it, even. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s only your perception of yourself and of others, not reality.

It’s easy to paint the opposition with a broad brush and to resort to emotional bluster. Any retard can do that.[/quote]Pot, meet kettle.. because you just accomplished what you accuse others of doing.

[ucodegen]

[quote=KIBU]1 police dead, 1 bystander dead. One ir”responsible” gunman killed again, Christmas Eve shooting:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-among-2-fatally-shot-houston-174608152.html%5B/quote%5DThis proves what? There is not enough info to know if gun control would have made any difference. Considering that the guy responded to being pulled over by firing a gun and killing someone, it would be safe to assume that the suspect had a felony record. If a felon gets caught w/ a gun on his possession or car.. straight to jail. BTW, if you are on probation, it is legal for your car to be searched w/o a warrant.

If he was a felon, gun control would not have changed anything because it was already illegal for him to possess a firearm.

[zk]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=zk]I know that a lot of right wingers (men and women) consider themselves manly and badass. The right-wing noise machine has been playing to their perceptions of themselves for a long time. Successfully. They love to talk about liberals as pussies and themselves as powerful. This article plays right along. Enjoy it. Jack off to it, even. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s only your perception of yourself and of others, not reality.

It’s easy to paint the opposition with a broad brush and to resort to emotional bluster. Any retard can do that.[/quote]Pot, meet kettle.. because you just accomplished what you accuse others of doing.[/quote]

True. True indeed.

I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?

[ocrenter]

[quote=zk]

True. True indeed.

I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?[/quote]

Bottom line from this discussion: America loves its guns. When you are dealing with a beloved object of affection, you will get very heated and emotional arguments thrown at you when you try to talk about regulation and restriction.

[all]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=KIBU]Today’s shooting: 2 firefighters dead + 1 more ir”responsible” gun user killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.%5B/quote%5D The shooter was a felon. He was not legally able to own a gun (used ‘was’ because he no longer is). Any change in gun laws would have done absolutely nothing. In many ways, this shooting shows what is wrong with assuming that gun laws will prevent it. His gun ownership was already illegal and against existing laws. Felons, particularly those currently on probation, can NOT own any firearm.

The shooter was not afraid of dying to pull off his shooting. That means that even a penalty of death for possessing a firearm would not have stopped him. How much more strict a ‘gun law’ can you make than the death penalty?[/quote]

What about making it harder to obtain a gun? The guy had it, so unless he made it he had to get it from someone.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
True. True indeed.

I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn’t around to quickly post a response. My point was that just because you have a particular set of gun laws on the books does not mean that gun related death statistics correspond directly with those laws. Swiss people have a high ratio of guns to population, higher than here and yet they have lower gun related deaths. Mexico has much stricter gun related laws and yet the number of gun related deaths in Mexico is much higher than here

Your point seems to be that guns to gun related deaths is proportional and the major contributing factor. If that was true then explain Mexico and explain Switzerland. Do a study and actually prove that guns to gun related deaths is actually proportional and then maybe you have a point.

Of course let’s say we do get to a point where you do make that point, how do you propose to deal with all the guns and ammo we already have in america. Are you planning of confiscating it? Because if you aren’t, than even having those laws on the books does nothing to dramatically change the guns to people ratio in this country.

As for the bad ass and all that nonsense, that’s the kind of argument people make when they let emotions get in the way of logical discussion. In my eyes you owning a gun does no harm to me. It’s only when you decide to commit another crime against me like murder or robbery that it might matter. Of course in that case there’s plenty of other instruments of force that you can use against me besides a gun. All in all it might not matter.

At this point all I’m seeing in the argument is that gun control might make a difference but I’m not really sure. Even though I’m not sure it’s worth it to infringe on a constitutional right. I’m willing to accept gun control laws if you can get enough support to create a constitutional amendment, but everybody knows that isn’t happening.

[all]

Switzerland is ‘different’.

The military service is mandatory in Switzerland and members of militia (basically every capable male) must keep the government issued rifle and ammunition at home. Upon completing the training the militiaman has the option to keep the weapon (modified to semi-automatic).
So, all males are evaluated before conscription and those who are find capable will receive ~20 weeks of training. If you want to buy another gun you need a permit. If you want to carry your gun you need another permit. If you are a working class ‘auslander’ good luck getting any of that.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

Sorry, I wasn’t around to quickly post a response.
[/quote]

Didn’t mean to rush you. Glad you’re here now with some reasonable arguments.

[quote=livinincali] My point was that just because you have a particular set of gun laws on the books does not mean that gun related death statistics correspond directly with those laws. Swiss people have a high ratio of guns to population, higher than here and yet they have lower gun related deaths. Mexico has much stricter gun related laws and yet the number of gun related deaths in Mexico is much higher than here

Your point seems to be that guns to gun related deaths is proportional and the major contributing factor. If that was true then explain Mexico and explain Switzerland. Do a study and actually prove that guns to gun related deaths is actually proportional and then maybe you have a point.

[/quote]

I think that both Mexico and Switzerland can be explained by cultural differences. My point was not that you’d have the same number of gun-related deaths in any different country that has the same gun-control laws. My point is that the kind of gun laws that the U.K. has would result in fewer gun deaths in countries with cultures similar to the U.K.’s. Such as the U.S.

In Switzerland, you have a generally less violent culture than ours. And I believe (I could be wrong – this is an assumption on my part) that gun violence is not glorified there the way it is here. People don’t see guns as making them badass. They see them as hunting and self-defense tools. I doubt they play violent video games as much as Americans do. Etcetera.

In Mexico, you have a corrupt government and police force, and an out-of-control drug trade. It’s probably not that hard to get a gun if you’re a drug dealer there.

[quote=livinincali]
Of course let’s say we do get to a point where you do make that point, how do you propose to deal with all the guns and ammo we already have in america. Are you planning of confiscating it? Because if you aren’t, than even having those laws on the books does nothing to dramatically change the guns to people ratio in this country.
[/quote]

This is an excellent point, and a very troublesome problem. But I don’t think we should just say, “the guns are out there. We’re screwed. Nothing we can do now. Let’s just keep things the way they are and put up with the thousands of gun murders every year because it’ll be too hard to change it.” (Not that you’re saying that). I think bold action is required, and that confiscating guns is part of that required action.

Before the public would get behind such an effort, it would take a sea change in our society. It is that sea change that we should be working on. Because, as you said, without confiscating guns, nothing will really change. And without that sea change, confiscation won’t happen.

After that, you won’t have handguns or assault rifles, and what guns you do have will, as much as possible, be in the hands of responsible people. And perhaps then a few thousand fewer innocent people will die every year in this country.

I understand this doesn’t sound realistic at this point in our country’s history. But attitudes change. For instance, if an operation as effective and omnipresent as the right-wing noise machine were to spring up and try to sway people in favor of meaningful gun-control laws, it could happen. Or if time passes and more people die, eventually this sea change could occur naturally.

[quote=livinincali]
As for the bad ass and all that nonsense, that’s the kind of argument people make when they let emotions get in the way of logical discussion. In my eyes you owning a gun does no harm to me. It’s only when you decide to commit another crime against me like murder or robbery that it might matter. Of course in that case there’s plenty of other instruments of force that you can use against me besides a gun. All in all it might not matter.
[/quote]

I don’t agree with the “other instruments of force” argument. Sure, a person could walk into a McDonalds and start stabbing people. But to think that it would happen nearly as often as it does with guns just doesn’t seem realistic to me. It takes real guts (I imagine) to walk up to somebody and stab them. They might grab your knife and stab you. And you can’t just stab them once, generally, if you want to kill them. It’s a lot easier and more effective to stand a few feet away and pull a trigger.

[quote=livinincali]

At this point all I’m seeing in the argument is that gun control might make a difference but I’m not really sure. Even though I’m not sure it’s worth it to infringe on a constitutional right. I’m willing to accept gun control laws if you can get enough support to create a constitutional amendment, but everybody knows that isn’t happening.[/quote]

It’s not in the constitution that you can own a handgun or an assault rifle.

In any case, the second amendment was, as I understand it, to allow the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, if necessary. That might have worked in the 18th century. To think that the citizenry would have to and be able to conduct such an uprising today is a paranoid fantasy.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=zk] In any case, the second amendment was, as I understand it, to allow the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, if necessary. That might have worked in the 18th century. To think that the citizenry would have to and be able to conduct such an uprising today is a paranoid fantasy.[/quote]

Then there is your solution. Work for repeal of the 2nd amendment “paranoid fantasy” and you get what you want. A society where it is criminal for anybody to own a weapon.

None of the mainstream political parties even suggest the above, but you got to start from somewhere.

As for your position on cultural differences, I hope you realize that it is a very thin argument that can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions: Americans are culturally inferior, hence cannot be trusted with guns while swiss can > to Americans are more violent > to Americans are inferior & violent.

[Author]

Posts