This is what it really all boils down to and I hold duel citizenship
Americans are paranoid. Fear controls their actions. Scream about freedoms but gave up so many due to fear with Patriot act.
Shooting in Connecticut
- Thread starter D23
- Start date
- Status
This is what it really all boils down to and I hold duel citizenship
Americans are paranoid. Fear controls their actions. Scream about freedoms but gave up so many due to fear with Patriot act.
I like the freedom of choice. No problem with regulation. That's what governments are suppose to do. Govern, regulate. But, you can't remove the problem by banning the whole lot. If that was the case, there would be no more swimming pools , bicycles, or other things or activities that do result in the deaths of many children every year.
The thing about guns and nut jobs is, it requires a lot less thought to keep your distance and squeeze the trigger to mow down a bunch of people. Even a chain saw requires a little more to muster up the courage and get personal when killing another human being.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Doing nothing certainly isn't the answer. I think there should be a lot more focus on the mental health of folks in my opinion.
The human condition never fails to amaze me. Here we are, almost the year 2013 and we still have racisim, mass murders, dictators, unequal rights for homosexuality and women, the list goes on. Humans are still a bunch of savages in this day and age. It's crazy.
I'm off the garage to tinker with my bike and look forward to a early spring.
The thing about guns and nut jobs is, it requires a lot less thought to keep your distance and squeeze the trigger to mow down a bunch of people. Even a chain saw requires a little more to muster up the courage and get personal when killing another human being.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Doing nothing certainly isn't the answer. I think there should be a lot more focus on the mental health of folks in my opinion.
The human condition never fails to amaze me. Here we are, almost the year 2013 and we still have racisim, mass murders, dictators, unequal rights for homosexuality and women, the list goes on. Humans are still a bunch of savages in this day and age. It's crazy.
I'm off the garage to tinker with my bike and look forward to a early spring.
And as you rightly said it's the human condition and these things will never change, human beings are convinced they live outside the norms of nature and do their best to act this way at every opportunity.
Unlike the rest of nature we have pretty much tipped the laws of nature in our favor, with our big brains and all for better or worse, and as such obviously need someone or something to protect us from ourselves.
The purpose of the wall of text and pretty bars and lines is severalfold:
First, to illustrate the actual scale of the problem against those who might say "problem, what problem?" as in this statement that johnp linked to earlier;
"On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns"
- Larry Correia
Second, to defend against the cherry-picked statistics in defense of lax gun rules, also linked to by john p earlier.
Third, because I intend to put forward my best argument in favour of gun control, and this is only the first step of what will hopefully be a sequence of steps in support of that conclusion, if there is interest in the subject for long enough. Then if I lose anybody along the way I want to know where, so I can either review my rationale or explain it better.
One of the steps will address your obervation about the mentality in America, which I agree with entirely.
johnp
Well-known member
Hard to say, since Switzerland, Israel, Finland and New Zealand (on your charts too) also have very high rates of gun ownership and much lower firearm homicide than the U.S.
And it's not a matter of being pro gun or anti gun. Everybody would like to keep guns out of the hands of wacko's.
It's whether or not you believe that banning gun ownership will reduce U.S. homicides - or just make you feel warm and fuzzy. The war on drugs isn't working and Prohibition didn't work either.
The graphs are interesting but don't argue for banning guns, (if that's what you're trying to argue).
It is hard to come to any definitive conclusion about what the issues might be, but it is possible to notice trends. For example, countries with larger populations tend to have lower homicide rates. Countries with higher per capita GDP rates tend to have lower homicide rates. And, countries where gun controls are more strict tend to have lower homicide rates.
However, such claims may still be too wishy washy to make a comfortable declaration about, so forget all that.
For the purpose of my argument I just need to know whether we can all agree that the US has a problem with violent crimes, given it's disproportionately high and longstanding track record of homicides over the years?
People could post a bunch of comparisons of car accidents to motorcycle accidents and conclude that a higher percentage of motorcycle accidents end in fatality. They could then conclude that motorcycles are dangerous and cause death.
Would you care?
Would it make you stop riding?
Would you consider a motorcycle ban where they took your bike and crushed it without you being compensated?
No. You wouldn't give them the time of day and more importantly, it would never happen.
:spoiler alert:
America is full of psychopaths.
BTW: what you are missing are all the pretty graphs and statistics that show how many people have been murdered in countries that just don't give a **** about recording statistics.
Would you care?
Would it make you stop riding?
Would you consider a motorcycle ban where they took your bike and crushed it without you being compensated?
No. You wouldn't give them the time of day and more importantly, it would never happen.
:spoiler alert:
America is full of psychopaths.
BTW: what you are missing are all the pretty graphs and statistics that show how many people have been murdered in countries that just don't give a **** about recording statistics.
johnp
Well-known member
I'm onside.
I assess the risk and modify my behaviour accordingly. I wear protective gear, I don't let idiot road users bother me, I take my time at intersections, and I leave the speed to the track. All things I never did in a car.
All of which brings me to my second wall of text, which I will erect tonight as I have to go now
The bill. It's not unrealistic IMO.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Alright so most sensible people concede there is a problem, and most of us have even figured out what we think the cause of the problem is, like Americans always living in fear, or too many guns, or not enough guns. But what IS the cause?
I've been watching a lot of Air Crash Investigation lately. When dealing with the cause of a crash, all options are on the table. Mechanical failure, weather conditions, pilot error, ATC error, poor communication, ground crew error, sabotage. Usualy a combination of factors are found to be responsible.
I think it's an appropriate analogy to draw here. Say there is a airline company with a high statistical rate of crashes, that company will get scrutinised (ex Adam Air) and may see restrictions or outright grounding of their operations. Let's say there is an indication that a lot of those crashes occur in poor weather conditions, then you will get some knee-jerk reactionaries saying all flights in inclement weather should be banned, end of story. Then another subset will dismiss the problem outright, saying they should train pilots to fly more in bad weather so they are better prepared for those conditions, or poor weather is unpredictable so it can't be avoided, or the region that airline flies in is known for bad weather so the statistical anomaly has to be accepted, or flights in bad weather are required for scientists to gather weather data, or whatever other defense of the status quo.
But air crash investigators will go and look at each incident to draw conclusions without prejudice. Their recommendations will be based on whatever they find was a contributing factor to the crashes, that could be modified to improve the safety of future flights.
I have compiled a list of factors that I believe need to be considered with regards to the causes of crime rates that need to be considered. It's as complete as I can think of right now, and in no particular order it includes these aspects;
Law enforcement
Security systems
Media (news, rhetoric)
Foreign threat level
Place of residence / work
Entertainment (sports, movies, games)
Social support systems
Poverty / Income gap
Network of friends
Religious beliefs
Availability of weapons
Organised crime / corruption
Mental illness
Awareness of one’s surroundings
Physical strength / skill
Morals
So my second question is, do you agree that if we are going to discuss any improvement of the situation of violence in America, then we need to have a cold, dispationate, methodical look at any factor that might contribute to the problem, including specifically access to guns?
Last edited:
A marine's letter to Ms. Feinstein
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
All things need to be considered. Even what the NRA bring to the table. It might not be the best way, but it is a possibility and thus it must be looked at objectively.
You forgot drugs on your list. I'm not talking about the illegal kind either. There seems to be a pill for everything now. I have watched a video on another site with regards to side effects and it states most of the mass murders were committed by individuals on some sort of prescribed medication.
You could also probably add religion.
Absolutely, everything's on the table at this point in my argument because no cause has been identified for the problem yet. One thing at a time.
As for areas of concern, I would classify drugs under mental health, and religion is on the list. But even if the list is missing some items, the point is simply that each aspect needs to be factored in with the others rather that looked at in isolation (or worse, disregarded entirely).
No it's not unrealistic in it's content. It's a bill that proposes stopping the production and sale of firearms that's only purpose are to kill people efficiently. Firearms that are easily concealable and can fire large amounts of ammunition in confined areas. It needs to have a clearer definition of what it wants to ban since there are grey areas in firearm classification but it's taking the right steps to work that out.
What it wants to get rid of is death weapons like this......
Not hunting weapons with limited magazines that are heavy, long guns.
You're not a S.E.A.L. no matter how much multicam and tacticool you buy to go to the range. You don't need CQB weapons with 30 rnd mags bud.
If you're terrified to live in your own home for fear of home invasion by a shotgun.
You're little letter is cute though. An American waving a flag in one hand and lighting his lighter in the other. It's the typical reply of some gun nut who thinks his country owes him because they gave him a job. Basically he claims he can do whatever he wants and if it's a law he will break it. A law of the very government he swore an oath to obey.
Pretty pathetic excuse for a soldier. Sorry, ex-soldier. Never mentioned why he got the boot.
Anyway....If the law does pass he may not be so brave. He may just do what hes told to avoid another 8 years of service, picking garbage off the side of the interstate chained to another convict.
BTW: My R guns are all registered. I will continue to use them legally and if the law changes I will obey the law. Not that I really think it's an issue since this is Canada and the topic is America but I'm putting it out there before I get the typical "you're an anti" reply that's supposed to have some kind of merit....
Focus on the issue which is psychopaths killing innocent civilians with assault weapons. Not others inflated sense of entitlement.
Just to present the other side of the coin, here's something written by a US Marine Iraq vet and hunter who favours gun control: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/iraq_vet_newtown_changed_my_mind_on_gun_control/
I don't think that forcing the registration and limiting mag capacity of semi-automatic sporting rifles will have any real impact on these shooting deaths. The LGR was a huge waste of taxpayer money and that is why it got scrapped on our side of the border. Neutering magazines? Are you guys for real? It takes less than 5min to bring one back to full capacity. You think the psycho killer type, the guy who starts a farming operation in order to get fertilizer for his bomb will worry about mag capacity limits? All that's gonna do is hinder the sporting use of those firearms without making us any safer. Someone like me will toe the line and write his congressman and someone like Tim McV will pick up his Dremel and go to town on the mags.
A firearms purpose is whatever it's owner intends it's purpose to be - whether that be target shooting, hunting, collecting, or - - - . If someone intends to use their firearm as a weapon, then they certainly have a purpose built tool for that. BUT - that doesn't mean that it's all that firearm is for. Kind of up to the individual, to decide why he has that, or any other firearm. The vast majority of firearms are used by reasonable, law-abiding people for the first 3 things - wacko's, criminals, etc. would use them for the latter. If you can figure a way of keeping guns out of the hands of these people, I'm all for it..
[/QUOTE]
What it wants to get rid of is death weapons like this......
Not hunting weapons with limited magazines that are heavy, long guns.
You're not a S.E.A.L. no matter how much multicam and tacticool you buy to go to the range. You don't need CQB weapons with 30 rnd mags bud..[/QUOTE]
Now we're going to decide what people need ?? Has absolutely nothing to do with need. We both have all sorts of stuff we don't need, but if we can afford it and we're not hurting anyone, why should we be prevented from owning it ? We have to have our freedoms curtailed, because there are a "relative" handful of reprobates, who may obtain this "stuff" ? - who, by the way, will do so, whether it's banned/illegal, or otherwise. If I may add - I don't own an AR15 and have never aspired to, nor any other similar firearm. I find them as esthetically attractive as a cement mixer. I also don't own anything made with composites, or alloys - I prefer wood and steel. But that's just me - some people think think AR15's are neat and like to load up the rails with all manner of gadgets - good for them - if they can afford it ? No skin off my nose - I still think they're ugly.
.[/QUOTE]
If you're terrified to live in your own home for fear of home invasion by a shotgun..[/QUOTE]
I haven't been terrified about anything, for many, many years - and I certainly wouldn't be terrified of a home invasion by a shotgun - unless there was a bad person pointing it at me.
.[/QUOTE]
You're little letter is cute though. An American waving a flag in one hand and lighting his lighter in the other. It's the typical reply of some gun nut who thinks his country owes him because they gave him a job. Basically he claims he can do whatever he wants and if it's a law he will break it. A law of the very government he swore an oath to obey.
Pretty pathetic excuse for a soldier. Sorry, ex-soldier. Never mentioned why he got the boot..[/QUOTE]
You're a lot better than me at reading information into this marines letter. I had no idea that he smoked, nor did I know that he "got the boot". I just assumed that his enlistment was up. I have no military back-ground though, so this talent seems to have eluded me.
.[/QUOTE]
Anyway....If the law does pass he may not be so brave. He may just do what hes told to avoid another 8 years of service, picking garbage off the side of the interstate chained to another convict..[/QUOTE]
A lot of speculation on your part, Dude. I certainly wouldn't have the brass, to crap all over a man who wrote a blank cheque to his country, for 8 years.
.[/QUOTE]
BTW: My R guns are all registered. I will continue to use them legally and if the law changes I will obey the law. Not that I really think it's an issue since this is Canada and the topic is America but I'm putting it out there before I get the typical "you're an anti" reply that's supposed to have some kind of merit....
Focus on the issue which is psychopaths killing innocent civilians with assault weapons. Not others inflated sense of entitlement.[/QUOTE]
My take is similar to yours - Psychopaths killing civilians - but I wouldn't be any happier if they employed any other method to accomplish this - sarin gas, diesel fuel/fertilizer, etc.
The issue - which I've been focused on for years (thank you) is friggin' do-gooders, with no idea of how to resolve a contentious issue, deciding that they'll start taking stuff away from people, who have never been part of the problem, or on the wrong side of the law. It ain't guns, man - it's the freedom of law abiding people to live their lives, without a repressive body, determining how those people shall live.
Last edited:
So basically you're a restricted PAL holder, owner of restricted firearms, and you think its okay to ban the sale of AR15s which look scary but perform the same function as any other semi-auto on the market.
Pathetic.
- Status
