Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: America, open your eyes
  • Subject: America, open your eyes
Subject: America, open your eyes

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way

  • 12.16.2012 12:11 PM PDT

Lets Boogie

Majority of gun owners are not psychos who shoot up schools/malls or any other place. So why punish the many for the sins of the few? Makes no sense.

  • 12.16.2012 12:11 PM PDT

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith


Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Yet it IS known that every single rampage shooting was committed with a legally obtained firearm.
The Connecticut killer was in illegal possession of two handguns.
what, the ones he stole from his mother, who did buy them legally?
It doesn't matter if his mother bought them legally; he was under 21 and could not legally possess handguns. He was breaking existing gun control laws before he ever set foot on school grounds.


Garland, the point is that he didn't need to go to a black market to buy them. They were readily accessible to him.

You guys have been going on and on about "if guns were illegal, he would of got them anyways." This is a fallicy, since none of the guns used in any of the rampage shootings were purchased illegally.

They were all owned by either the perpetrators, or a close relative.

In every single case the guns were not stolen and sold to them, they were not shipped in and sold to them, THERE WAS NO BLACK MARKET SALE!

Your argument falls apart right there. You can continue to dance around this issue, but that does not make it any less true.

  • 12.16.2012 12:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Posted by: Garland
I underlined the key point. He stole them. On top of that, he couldn't legally carry or posses a handgun anyways. There is no way that you can argue that he legally acquired those handguns.
And if there were laws that prevented his mom from having those guns, this whole ordeal wouldn't have happened, or at least it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him.

He used an M4 and two handguns, none of them bought illegally. That is what we mean by the guns being legal.

  • 12.16.2012 12:13 PM PDT


Posted by: haloplayer2kill
Majority of gun owners are not psychos who shoot up schools/malls or any other place. So why punish the many for the sins of the few? Makes no sense.


This.

  • 12.16.2012 12:14 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way


Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.

  • 12.16.2012 12:16 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
In every single case the guns were not stolen and sold to them, they were not shipped in and sold to them, THERE WAS NO BLACK MARKET SALE!
I never said anything about a black market sale. My whole point is that he was already breaking existing gun control laws when he illegally acquired, possessed, and carried those handguns.

  • 12.16.2012 12:17 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way

Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.
While this example is less relevant, I have several guns from the Civil War era that are still in operational condition, despite being over 150 years old.

  • 12.16.2012 12:18 PM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.


Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way


Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.


The AK-47 is designed to be easy to manufacture and easy to use, nothing else.

Things that will degrade a weapon:

- Moisture
- Submersion in water
- Sand
- Misuse
- Pulling the bolt the wrong way
- Oxidization
- Physical damage
- Barrel heat deformation
- Overuse

...

  • 12.16.2012 12:20 PM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.

Posted by: Garland
While this example is less relevant, I have several guns from the Civil War era that are still in operational condition, despite being over 150 years old.


They were stored and relatively unused. Weapons being used actively very quickly degrade

  • 12.16.2012 12:20 PM PDT


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Yet it IS known that every single rampage shooting was committed with a legally obtained firearm.
The Connecticut killer was in illegal possession of two handguns.
what, the ones he stole from his mother, who did buy them legally?
It doesn't matter if his mother bought them legally; he was under 21 and could not legally possess handguns. He was breaking existing gun control laws before he ever set foot on school grounds.


Garland, the point is that he didn't need to go to a black market to buy them. They were readily accessible to him.

You guys have been going on and on about "if guns were illegal, he would of got them anyways." This is a fallicy, since none of the guns used in any of the rampage shootings were purchased illegally.

They were all owned by either the perpetrators, or a close relative.

In every single case the guns were not stolen and sold to them, they were not shipped in and sold to them, THERE WAS NO BLACK MARKET SALE!

Your argument falls apart right there. You can continue to dance around this issue, but that does not make it any less true.


I'd just like to point out, that even if guns were illegal in the US, there are so many already here, that he could've stolen guns from someone that owned guns before they were banned. Unless the government could come up with the money and the balls to storm into everyones' homes and take their guns.

  • 12.16.2012 12:20 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

残酷な天使のテーゼ


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
Yet it IS known that every single rampage shooting was committed with a legally obtained firearm.
The Connecticut killer was in illegal possession of two handguns.
what, the ones he stole from his mother, who did buy them legally?
It doesn't matter if his mother bought them legally; he was under 21 and could not legally possess handguns. He was breaking existing gun control laws before he ever set foot on school grounds.


Garland, the point is that he didn't need to go to a black market to buy them. They were readily accessible to him.

You guys have been going on and on about "if guns were illegal, he would of got them anyways." This is a fallicy, since none of the guns used in any of the rampage shootings were purchased illegally.

They were all owned by either the perpetrators, or a close relative.

In every single case the guns were not stolen and sold to them, they were not shipped in and sold to them, THERE WAS NO BLACK MARKET SALE!

Your argument falls apart right there. You can continue to dance around this issue, but that does not make it any less true.


So if I steal a car from somneone, did I acquire it legally? Cool! Better go take my neighbor's car!

  • 12.16.2012 12:21 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

残酷な天使のテーゼ


Posted by: ParagonRenegade

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way


Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.


The AK-47 is designed to be easy to manufacture and easy to use, nothing else.

Things that will degrade a weapon:

- Moisture
- Submersion in water
- Sand
- Misuse
- Pulling the bolt the wrong way
- Oxidization
- Physical damage
- Barrel heat deformation
- Overuse

...



AK47's are known to survive just about anything they would encounter.

  • 12.16.2012 12:22 PM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.

Posted by: HWJohn
So if I steal a car from somneone, did I acquire it legally? Cool! Better go take my neighbor's car!


Don't be a smartass; the car was originally obtained in a legal way

  • 12.16.2012 12:23 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: Garland
While this example is less relevant, I have several guns from the Civil War era that are still in operational condition, despite being over 150 years old.

They were stored and relatively unused. Weapons being used actively very quickly degrade
Even hardened criminals don't use guns very often.

Unless you're constantly in combat for an extended period of time, it will take a long time before a gun such as an AK-47 becomes worn out due to heavy use. And AK parts are easy to produce.

  • 12.16.2012 12:23 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

残酷な天使のテーゼ


Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: HWJohn
So if I steal a car from somneone, did I acquire it legally? Cool! Better go take my neighbor's car!


Don't be a smartass; the car was originally obtained in a legal way


Yeah, I originally obtained it by stealing. Perfectly legal!

  • 12.16.2012 12:24 PM PDT

About me: I am a vicious wolf of a man.

But really am sweet at heart. =)


Posted by: Flaming Skullz
Now let me get this straight before I begin. I am not trying to start a flame war! I am simply trying to see the opinions and reactions on this topic, mostly from American citizens.

Now here's the topic; guns. Yes, I know what your thinking, but hear me out. Guns are a dangerous thing, right? They're designed to kill people. Now, I suppose you could say the same for cigarettes, a pack of cigarettes lying in a draw doesn't kill anyone. Neither does a gun lying in a draw. The point here is that a gun left untouched, is much safer than a gun being touched.

Now, I'm going to tell you a very interesting fact. I'm Australian, and the last mass shooting in Australia occured 15 years ago, after which semi-automatic and automatic rifles in Australia were banned. The last mass shooting in america was less than a week ago, and the one before that was 6 months ago. Now, I don't believe firearms in America should be totally banned, because they're not in Australia. I just think there should be a limit on what kind of weapons can be sold, and who can buy them.

Here is some comparrison on American and Australian gun laws.

Australia
-Only bolt-action rifles may be sold (yes, that means no handguns)
-These weapons must be sold to the buyer on government property
-Buyers must have a valid reason to own the weapon (farming, hunting, ect)
-12 month police background check must be completed
-No citizen may own more than 2 firearms

America
-All kinds of weapons may be sold
-Weapons don't have to be sold on government property
-Buyer doesn't need valid reason (Anyone can say "to protect myself")
-Shorter background check (I'm not sure about exact length)
-Citizens can own many firearms

Now, most Americans usually say "Even if gun laws are changed, criminals can still buy it off the black market". That is very true, but Australia has a black market too, you know. Yet, we don't have mass shootings every 6 months. Also, guns are legal in America so they can apparently 'overthrow the government.' How exactly would that work? I doubt an angry mob can take on the US Army, even if they did have guns.

Now, as I said, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I just hope I can open the eyes of at least one of you. What are your thoughts on this topic, and how I've approached it.


1. All kinds of weapons may be sold
Incorrect. Long rifles sold in the US must be over a certain barrel length, and there is a very very strict licensing system for purchasing any weapon that is automatic, additionally, high capacity magazines are also banned.

2. We don't have school shootings every six months
True, but Australia also has a fraction of the population of the US, and much less built up urban centers, additionally being in the middle of -blam!- nowhere in the world you aren't exactly a massive target for organized crime or cartels. Obviously, in a nation that spans an entire continent that ISN'T 80% desert, we will have a much higher crime rate.

3. Weapons don't have to be sold on government property
No but firearms SELLERS need to pass a huge background check and licensing process.

4. Shorter background checks
This varies state by state, in Minnesota it is a 2 week process. A 12 month process is hopelessly unrealistic and moronic. 12 weeks? What if you're a farmer or herder and your herd is being attacked by predators so you need to shoot them? What if a woman is buying a gun to defend herself from an abusive boyfriend, or just because she is afraid of getting mugged? How long does it take do do a background check when all of our info is computerized and accessable from ONE Social Security number?

5. Citizens can own many fire arms

Yeah...because not all guns do the same thing obviously. I'm not going to go trap shooting with my .22LR target shooting rifle, just like I'm not going to go hunting with my Browning Citori trap gun. Just like I won't be using my .30-06 deer rifle for home defense. Saying this is the same as this is just dumb.

6.Also, guns are legal in America so they can apparently 'overthrow the government.' I wouldn't expect a subject of the Empire we kicked out to understand the idea of liberty.

The Second Amendment was a safe guard against the federal government gaining too much power and subjegating it's people, it is a final defense against tyranny. If the government were to say, start torturing US prisoners, or start putting people in "safety" camps to combat "terrorism" is would give the people the ability to fight back.

The Second Amendment gives the power back to the people, because no dictator in history has ever been successful when dealing with an armed and educated population. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Minh, and every other dictator banned guns first. And while it would require more organizing than an "angry mob" yes, an armed population, dissatisfied with the government, could overthrow it. Most of the armed forces are actually deployed outside the country.

Look at it this way. From 1775-1781 a group of largely untrained farmers defeated the British Army.

It doesn't give free reign to shoot people because you hate the government, but it's in our Bill of Rights, and if they take away the 2nd Amendment, what's to say they won't take away the First if it suits their needs?

Back on topic. Banning guns would be impossible anyway because there are 3 guns for every person in the US. What would we do when we had all of them anyway? Additionally, we don't have NEARLY enough cops to do the job of protecting rural communities who won't be able to defend themselves. Case in point here in Minnesota, a relatively populated state, we have 3 police officers on duty every night for a city of 25,000+ people. The city next to us of 91,000 people has about a dozen cops on duty at any time. The logistics dont work. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

The gun is the only weapon that can put a 140lb old lady on the same playing field as a 230lb muscled mugger. Unless you want to try to solve the mathematical impossibility of doubling or tripling the size of all the police forces in the US, lighting up every single dark alley of every city, and arresting every bad person who will do something illegal ever, then shut up and let me keep my guns.

  • 12.16.2012 12:24 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

I'm just going to leave this here;

We can safely say from this graph that guns do not cause an increase in crime.

  • 12.16.2012 12:26 PM PDT


Posted by: ParagonRenegade

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way


Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.


The AK-47 is designed to be easy to manufacture and easy to use, nothing else.

Things that will degrade a weapon:

- Moisture
- Submersion in water
- Sand
- Misuse
- Pulling the bolt the wrong way
- Oxidization
- Physical damage
- Barrel heat deformation
- Overuse

...
My friend used a AK, that had being buried in a swamp for a decade when he was in vietnam. It was all original parts from Yugoslavia he said. Those things will not simply die.

  • 12.16.2012 12:29 PM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.


Posted by: Gottalovec4
I wouldn't expect a subject of the Empire we kicked out to understand the idea of liberty.

The Second Amendment was a safe guard against the federal government gaining too much power and subjegating it's people, it is a final defense against tyranny. If the government were to say, start torturing US prisoners, or start putting people in "safety" camps to combat "terrorism" is would give the people the ability to fight back.


The USA does these things already

The Second Amendment gives the power back to the people, because no dictator in history has ever been successful when dealing with an armed and educated population. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Minh, and every other dictator banned guns first. And while it would require more organizing than an "angry mob" yes, an armed population, dissatisfied with the government, could overthrow it. Most of the armed forces are actually deployed outside the country.

In a democracy, there isn't a ruling caste or dictator

Look at it this way. From 1775-1781 a group of largely untrained farmers defeated the British Army.

With the support of defected British troops, the French, a merchant marine and a universally-hostile populace

It doesn't give free reign to shoot people because you hate the government, but it's in our Bill of Rights, and if they take away the 2nd Amendment, what's to say they won't take away the First if it suits their needs?

Because the First is actually applicable in the modern day.

Back on topic. Banning guns would be impossible anyway because there are 3 guns for every person in the US.

No

What would we do when we had all of them anyway? Additionally, we don't have NEARLY enough cops to do the job of protecting rural communities who won't be able to defend themselves. Case in point here in Minnesota, a relatively populated state, we have 3 police officers on duty every night for a city of 25,000+ people. The city next to us of 91,000 people has about a dozen cops on duty at any time. The logistics dont work. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

No

The gun is the only weapon that can put a 140lb old lady on the same playing field as a 230lb muscled mugger. Unless you want to try to solve the mathematical impossibility of doubling or tripling the size of all the police forces in the US, lighting up every single dark alley of every city, and arresting every bad person who will do something illegal ever, then shut up and let me keep my guns.

Peace through power appeal

  • 12.16.2012 12:30 PM PDT


Posted by: Next stalin

Posted by: ParagonRenegade

Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
Posted by: oaklandp8ntbalr
Guns are very durable pieces of equipment and can last a very, very long time.


No, that is completely and totally wrong in every way


Explain why an AK-47 will still shoot just fine 50 years from now. Because it's durable and designed to last a very long time.


The AK-47 is designed to be easy to manufacture and easy to use, nothing else.

Things that will degrade a weapon:

- Moisture
- Submersion in water
- Sand
- Misuse
- Pulling the bolt the wrong way
- Oxidization
- Physical damage
- Barrel heat deformation
- Overuse

...
My friend used a AK, that had being buried in a swamp for a decade when he was in vietnam. It was all original parts from Yugoslavia he said. Those things will not simply die.


Wow, I knew the things were tough, but to hear of someone actually pick one up outta that environment and start using it for combat is just crazy.

  • 12.16.2012 12:31 PM PDT

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

  • 12.16.2012 12:33 PM PDT

There's a “U” and “I” in union but just an “I” in my beliefs

Ummm why is OP reported?

  • 12.16.2012 12:34 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: G O R E25
That's a stupid rationale. The point is they were in legal possession of his mother, and he stole them from someone who'd obtained those guns legally.[/quote]
Not really, no matter how strict gun laws are you can still steal from someone
Mental competency tests for people who live in your household might help. I know, it's extreme. I know it's irrational. But as long as you don't have a crazy person in your house, you'll still get your gun. Your rights are not infringed.

And, if you do have someone with some sort of serious mental issue in your household, you're required to have a specific system of containing the gun. A lock system of some sort. A specific grade gun case. Etc. Obviously the requirements would change based on the gun itself.

Just an idea. I know it's not a good one as it's a prototype of an idea of an outline of a first draft of an idea for a law, but still.

  • 12.16.2012 12:34 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: ParagonRenegade
In a democracy, there isn't a ruling caste or dictator
*republic

But yes, I'd say the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been pretty effective at preventing tyranny, overall.
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
With the support of defected British troops, the French, a merchant marine and a universally-hostile populace
Only 1/3 of colonists were Patriots; 1/3 were loyalists and the last 1/3 were neutral.
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
It doesn't give free reign to shoot people because you hate the government, but it's in our Bill of Rights, and if they take away the 2nd Amendment, what's to say they won't take away the First if it suits their needs?
Because the First is actually applicable in the modern day.
Yes, it is. Not sure what your point is.
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
What would we do when we had all of them anyway? Additionally, we don't have NEARLY enough cops to do the job of protecting rural communities who won't be able to defend themselves. Case in point here in Minnesota, a relatively populated state, we have 3 police officers on duty every night for a city of 25,000+ people. The city next to us of 91,000 people has about a dozen cops on duty at any time. The logistics dont work. When seconds count, police are minutes away.No
Simply saying "no" doesn't make him wrong. Unless you get mugged right in front of a police officer or live next door to a police station, then police will take several minutes at least to reach you.
Posted by: ParagonRenegade
The gun is the only weapon that can put a 140lb old lady on the same playing field as a 230lb muscled mugger. Unless you want to try to solve the mathematical impossibility of doubling or tripling the size of all the police forces in the US, lighting up every single dark alley of every city, and arresting every bad person who will do something illegal ever, then shut up and let me keep my guns.
Peace through power appeal
Doesn't make it invalid.

  • 12.16.2012 12:38 PM PDT