Alflives Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 F%$king idiot on ultra Conservative think tank TV: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Personally, I don't like guns. I would never own one unless the situation mandated it. However, that's not how a lot of people view guns, and right or wrong, they have that freedom in the US. That's a problematic mentality. If it's wrong, don't do it. Simple as that. Common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaHoneyBadger Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 F%$king idiot on ultra Conservative think tank TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM7jxfxjphk Not sure who you are referring to as the idiot but had at least the security guards been allowed to have a weapon this could have ended with a lot less casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yeah cause this doesnt lack context or objectivity whatsoever lol some people just don't have context and objectivity in their cognitive functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Conveniently ignoring the regulations Switzerland has in place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 You believe the guns make deaths more common due to it's deadliness. I on the other hand feel that violent crimes will happen regardless of the availability of firearms. The major issue I have with any implementation of licensing or restriction is that it could easily be expanded without any real oversight. I asked this question before and received no answer: Would you rather be facing a violent person armed with a knife, or one with a semi-automatic firearm with a 30 round clip? Also, the "slippery slope" argument is weak. Neither government, Canadian or American, is seeking to outlaw hunting rifles, but certain types of weapons should be restricted. It's the same reason you're not allowed to own a bazooka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Conveniently ignoring the regulations Switzerland has in place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland I don't know how you assume their regulations are being ignored in this tongue in cheek meme. The swiss own a lot of guns, and they are also number 1 in lowest crime rates in the world. The arguments from the nanny state officials on this board claim that more guns = more gun violence and Switzerland proves them wrong. Other posters claim it's ok to have hunting rifles, but semi autos or assault rifles are too dangerous to let the public own. Switzerland is rife with automatic assault rifles. Honestly, you can't have it both ways. Either guns are the problem, or they're not. I think basing all gun ownership on US gun statistics is narrow minded and Switzerland is a shining example of why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I can't post the link here as there's a lot of swearing, but search youtube for: Jim Jefferies - Guns Are Not Protection That my friends is what guns really means to pro gun owners in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't know how you assume their regulations are being ignored in this tongue in cheek meme. The swiss own a lot of guns, and they are also number 1 in lowest crime rates in the world. The arguments from the nanny state officials on this board claim that more guns = more gun violence and Switzerland proves them wrong. Other posters claim it's ok to have hunting rifles, but semi autos or assault rifles are too dangerous to let the public own. Switzerland is rife with automatic assault rifles. Honestly, you can't have it both ways. Either guns are the problem, or they're not. I think basing all gun ownership on US gun statistics is narrow minded and Switzerland is a shining example of why. You have oversimplified things completely. The reason Switzerland has more guns is related to military service, etc. Moreover, the motivation for acquiring guns in Switzerland is entirely different. Need to take into consideration that US culture around guns. Need to also consider the socioeconomic status of the average individual in Switzerland versus the United States. Need to also consider access to mental health in the US versus Switzerland. Guns facilitate the use of violence by individuals with a higher likelihood of committing such crimes. In the US, this group of individuals is higher than in countries like Switzerland. If you could drastically change the wage disparity in the US, change the way guns are viewed/idolized in the US, change basically everything that the US stands for, you could reduce gun violence. However, that doesn't seem likely to work, so instead tightening gun laws in the US (which are looser than gun laws in Switzerland) seems a more practical response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 You have oversimplified things completely. The reason Switzerland has more guns is related to military service, etc. Moreover, the motivation for acquiring guns in Switzerland is entirely different. Need to take into consideration that US culture around guns. Need to also consider the socioeconomic status of the average individual in Switzerland versus the United States. Need to also consider access to mental health in the US versus Switzerland. Guns facilitate the use of violence by individuals with a higher likelihood of committing such crimes. In the US, this group of individuals is higher than in countries like Switzerland. If you could drastically change the wage disparity in the US, change the way guns are viewed/idolized in the US, change basically everything that the US stands for, you could reduce gun violence. However, that doesn't seem likely to work, so instead tightening gun laws in the US (which are looser than gun laws in Switzerland) seems a more practical response. Pretty much bang on. If you can't cure the disease, you should at least treat the symptoms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 You have oversimplified things completely. The reason Switzerland has more guns is related to military service, etc. Moreover, the motivation for acquiring guns in Switzerland is entirely different. Need to take into consideration that US culture around guns. Need to also consider the socioeconomic status of the average individual in Switzerland versus the United States. Need to also consider access to mental health in the US versus Switzerland. Guns facilitate the use of violence by individuals with a higher likelihood of committing such crimes. In the US, this group of individuals is higher than in countries like Switzerland. If you could drastically change the wage disparity in the US, change the way guns are viewed/idolized in the US, change basically everything that the US stands for, you could reduce gun violence. However, that doesn't seem likely to work, so instead tightening gun laws in the US (which are looser than gun laws in Switzerland) seems a more practical response. One of most rational arguments for more gun control in the US in this thread. I will be the first to admit that the US has a gun serious violence problem, but most of the arguments in this thread imply that the shear abundance of firearms in the US is the crux of the issue. Correlation does not equal causation. This is the point I have been trying to address. Edit: One more point I need to make. Gun control in the US is already very restrictive in certain states. California and New York have much stricter gun control policies than Canada for example. I own a few guns that would be illegal in these states. Switzerland has very similar licensing regulation to Canada, yet they have barely any restrictions on the kinds of guns you're allowed to own, regardless if their citizens served in their reserves for a year after highschool. It's also curious how these 2 states have some of the highest gun violence in all of the USA, but places like Montana and Texas have relatively low gun violence and extremely high gun ownership rates in comparison. The point is, things aren't really black and white when you look at reducing gun violence in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 One of most rational arguments for more gun control in the US in this thread. I will be the first to admit that the US has a gun serious violence problem, but most of the arguments in this thread imply that the shear abundance of firearms in the US is the crux of the issue. Correlation does not equal causation. This is the point I have been trying to address. Edit: One more point I need to make. Gun control in the US is already very restrictive in certain states. California and New York have much stricter gun control policies than Canada for example. I own a few guns that would be illegal in these states. Switzerland has very similar licensing regulation to Canada, yet they have barely any restrictions on the kinds of guns you're allowed to own, regardless if their citizens served in their reserves for a year after highschool. It's also curious how these 2 states have some of the highest gun violence in all of the USA, but places like Montana and Texas have relatively low gun violence and extremely high gun ownership rates in comparison. The point is, things aren't really black and white when you look at reducing gun violence in the states. Exactly. I received my first gun when I was about ten years old, yet I am not a violent person. I was given a pellet gun meant simply for the purpose of teaching me about guns and gun safety. I lived in a remote area, we had chickens, and from time to time racoons could break into the chicken coop and kill chickens. Learning about how to use a pellet gun then was not about shooting animals, it was about learning how to care for a firearm so that when I was older and more responsible I could make decisions on when shooting a racoon to protect a chicken was necessary (we moved and I never had to shoot a racoon). I am not for an all out ban on guns, but I am for restricting access to all guns and prohibiting access to certain guns. I would also love to see greater emphasis on mental health treatment and ending the use of criminal justice involvement as a means of dealing with the mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, this is silly and simplistic, but kinda on point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 One of most rational arguments for more gun control in the US in this thread. I will be the first to admit that the US has a gun serious violence problem, but most of the arguments in this thread imply that the shear abundance of firearms in the US is the crux of the issue. Correlation does not equal causation. This is the point I have been trying to address. Edit: One more point I need to make. Gun control in the US is already very restrictive in certain states. California and New York have much stricter gun control policies than Canada for example. I own a few guns that would be illegal in these states. Switzerland has very similar licensing regulation to Canada, yet they have barely any restrictions on the kinds of guns you're allowed to own, regardless if their citizens served in their reserves for a year after highschool. It's also curious how these 2 states have some of the highest gun violence in all of the USA, but places like Montana and Texas have relatively low gun violence and extremely high gun ownership rates in comparison. The point is, things aren't really black and white when you look at reducing gun violence in the states. Can I ask what kind of firearms you own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Right, I forgot it's always the gun's fault... Well, it is the bullets fired from the guns that entered people's bodies and killed them. So really it is the bullets' fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yes, this is silly and simplistic, but kinda on point... The only thing silly is to think only right wing people want to own guns. Otherwise it's bang on. Personally, I consider myself a libertarian. Just like Joey Ramone says, "the democrats want my guns and the republicans want my porno mags, and I ain't giving up either." Only in Canada the CPC don't care about porn, but maybe marijuana would be more relevant to today's political climate. They're all looking to take away personal rights in some form or fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Can I ask what kind of firearms you own? Honestly, I'm afraid of people judging me. I take a fair amount of abuse from owning guns already, especially growing up in a pacifist family. I've owned a variety of different guns over the years. Sold a lot off the last little while because my hobbies have diversified as of late. The one thing I will say is, the big scary guns from the movies that people try to ban are always the most fun to shoot at the range.(also the most expensive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I asked this question before and received no answer: Would you rather be facing a violent person armed with a knife, or one with a semi-automatic firearm with a 30 round clip? Also, the "slippery slope" argument is weak. Neither government, Canadian or American, is seeking to outlaw hunting rifles, but certain types of weapons should be restricted. It's the same reason you're not allowed to own a bazooka. It depends on the context. A Gurkha wielding a knife, I'm screwed.... as are most people. Packed subway with some guy stabbing indiscriminately, the results wouldn't differ too much than say someone with a firearm. The Calgary killings were conducted with a knife too. It's true a gun is much deadlier, nobody ever denies that. What most people are saying that a substitute will always be found. No guns in China... people just use cars, bombs and knives. No guns in Japan, they just use melee weapons, vehicles and poison gas. Same thing happens in other places where the availability of firearm are scarce. The argument always seems to revolve around banning the "big, black.... guns"... yet the majority of crimes with the usage of a firearm are actually handguns. Small firearms are strictly regulated and requires a conceal-carry license (depending on jurisdiction). So why is there a movement to ban the AR-15 and other such guns when they are less commonly used? A marksman with a handgun is probably more deadlier than some random schmuck with minimal training handling an AK-47. In terms of "deadlier", what is the precise definition of it? The calibre? The rate of fire? The magazine capacities? A 5-round SKS.... vs a 20-round glock.... which one is deadlier? Should the M2 .50 calibre machine gun be banned.... even though it has never been used in a crime before? Without any stringent or technical guidelines in determining what constitutes "deadly", it's open to massive abuse. Just read up on the CZ-858 if you want to see how bureaucrats can just deem a weapon "prohibited" just because they felt it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.