Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  • Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
Subject: Military grade weapons should be prohibited.
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Or.... If no one had guns to begin with.

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world's myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Earlier in this thread I linked to a Chinese teen who used a knife to kill 9 people in a murder-suicide that was psychologically very similar to most of the massacres in America. The problem here is not the weapons, but mentally deranged people. I've also already posted my Caudill copypasta that explains why guns are the most effective tools for self-defense.

  • 12.17.2012 8:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: ThirstyAvenge
Need me to bring this up?

If he did not possess those weapons, he wouldn't have killed that many people. The L1A1 SLR (or FN FAL) is as military grade as it can get.
Time for devil's advocate.

If everyone at that historic site has their own SLR, they would have shot and killed him themselves.

  • 12.17.2012 8:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: CND AAA Beef
I'm not saying we don't have crazies up here, but if someone snapped and decided to shoot up a school, the amount of firepower he'd have access to is a hell of a lot lower.
I'd like to quote this point, because it does a great job of summing up my own viewpoint as well.
Look at what happened during the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

The guy legally bought a Glock-19 and 30 round extended mags six weeks before his attack. Seriously, why would anyone need a handgun with a 30 round extended mag? A zombie apocalypse?

  • 12.17.2012 8:33 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

Posted by: Garland
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.
*looks for examples of negotiation-resolved robberies as is implied would happen if all parties have a gun*
*doesn't find any*

  • 12.17.2012 8:34 AM PDT


Posted by: ArchNinja64

Posted by: Double A

Posted by: ArchNinja64
Disagree. People are the problem, not guns.

Read the post kid.


Kid? LOL

I did. You said the same thing and then said AR's should be banned. Your logic doesnt make sense.


Givw me a reason why you would need an operational assualt rifle. It's bad for hunting, and you don't need that sort of gun for protection, thats what he's trying to say.

  • 12.17.2012 8:36 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.
*looks for examples of negotiation-resolved robberies as is implied would happen if all parties have a gun*
*doesn't find any*
*not the point*

The point is that the robbers were unable to use force to intimidate the homeowners into complying.

  • 12.17.2012 8:36 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Or.... If no one had guns to begin with.

This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world's myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Earlier in this thread I linked to a Chinese teen who used a knife to kill 9 people in a murder-suicide that was psychologically very similar to most of the massacres in America. The problem here is not the weapons, but mentally deranged people. I've also already posted my Caudill copypasta that explains why guns are the most effective tools for self-defense.
I don't think that anybody is agruing that mental illness is not an issue, because it obviously is.

Here are some facts:
- A mentally-stable stable person with a gun will not shoot anyone.
- A mentally-unstable without a gun will not shoot anyone.

The issue only arises when we have a mentally unstable person with a gun. Both ingredients are required for this type of tragedy.

Sure... Knives kill too. And people would be discussing knives if they believed they were a serious problem in the US. The fact that you have to cite an example from another country, however, should be proof that most people do not believe that to be the case. In fact, I would be surprised if you could find as many examples from the rest of the world involving knives as you can find within the US alone involving guns.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:44 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:38 AM PDT

I'm a Servant of The Secret Breach, haters shall not pass!
AlChestBreach@Youtube.com

I don't think you can get automatic assault rifles. can you?

  • 12.17.2012 8:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

deej pls

Yeah, right. Hunting isn't the reason people have guns as outline by the constitution.

We have weapons in the United States because we are to protect ourselves from, and over throw from an abusive government. Giving people pistols would make this even harder in the case that it would ever happen.

  • 12.17.2012 8:38 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: elsnben
Posted by: ArchNinja64
Posted by: Double A
Posted by: ArchNinja64
Disagree. People are the problem, not guns.

Read the post kid.


Kid? LOL

I did. You said the same thing and then said AR's should be banned. Your logic doesnt make sense.


Givw me a reason why you would need an operational assualt rifle. It's bad for hunting, and you don't need that sort of gun for protection, thats what he's trying to say.
The people that go through the amount of licencing and huge costs involved with buy an assault rifle or other fully automatic firearm are serious enthusiasts and collectors.

Such weapons have been used in two single homocides in the past 75 years. There is no logical reason to ban them. Saying "you don't need one" is a terrible reason, and could be used to ban anything that isn't basic food, water, shelter, and clothing.

  • 12.17.2012 8:39 AM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

A distinction between military and civilian weaponry should be made to determine which firearms civilians deserve to have available to them.

  • 12.17.2012 8:39 AM PDT

No bro, I like solving my problems by compounding them. Hell, if only the students had guns, they could have stopped the criminal themselves. Crossfire, what's that? Strap everybody up and fill everybody with enough lead for us to feel safe.

  • 12.17.2012 8:39 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.
*looks for examples of negotiation-resolved robberies as is implied would happen if all parties have a gun*
*doesn't find any*
*not the point*

The point is that the robbers were unable to use force to intimidate the homeowners into complying.
instead the homeowners used force to stop the burglars from complying with their wishes (ie: don't steal my stuff and get out of my house).

  • 12.17.2012 8:42 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Here are some facts:
- A mentally-stable stable person with a gun will not shoot anyone.
- A mentally-unstable without a gun will not shoot anyone.

The issue only arises when we have a mentally unstable person with a gun. Both ingredients are required for this type of tragedy.
Or you could have a mentally unstable person with a knife that goes on a rampage. Is 9 people dead not a tragedy?
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Sure... Knives kill too. And people would be discussing knives if they believed they were a serious problem in the US. The fact that you have to cite an example from another country, however, should be proof that most people do not believe that to be the case.
My point with that example is that spree killings still happen, even in countries where firearms are extremely regulated. It's the people that are the problem, not the tool used.
Posted by: Big Black Bear
In fact, I would be surprised if you could find as many examples from the rest of the world involving knivves as you can fins within the US alone involving guns.
Again, I think that mental health treatment and overzealous media attention contribute far more than the prevalence of guns.

  • 12.17.2012 8:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Bungie Sam
A distinction between military and civilian weaponry should be made to determine which firearms civilians deserve to have available to them.
Like so?

  • 12.17.2012 8:43 AM PDT

____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)

No and that is a -blam!- stupid thought OP.

What happens when the government inevitably comes to kill you? Hmm? You need the means to handle that threat. And don't tell me they won't try because if you look at any government in the history of the world they inevitable go for more power and control. This is coupled with the fact that they can and WILL kill you to further some agenda.

  • 12.17.2012 8:43 AM PDT


Posted by: Garland
Posted by: elsnben
Posted by: ArchNinja64
Posted by: Double A
Posted by: ArchNinja64
Disagree. People are the problem, not guns.

Read the post kid.


Kid? LOL

I did. You said the same thing and then said AR's should be banned. Your logic doesnt make sense.


Givw me a reason why you would need an operational assualt rifle. It's bad for hunting, and you don't need that sort of gun for protection, thats what he's trying to say.
The people that go through the amount of licencing and huge costs involved with buy an assault rifle or other fully automatic firearm are serious enthusiasts and collectors.

Such weapons have been used in two single homocides in the past 75 years. There is no logical reason to ban them. Saying "you don't need one" is a terrible reason, and could be used to ban anything that isn't basic food, water, shelter, and clothing.

Why do the the collectors need one that works?, all I'm saying is that banning weapons like assault rifles, SMG's and high caliber sniper rifles that are all operational isn't going to cause much of a problem, as the ones that want ones that are active, most likely want them for maliscious reasons.

just to clarify I'm mean banning active ones, I live in the UK and I'm allowed to own any gun that has been deativated.

  • 12.17.2012 8:44 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: CultMiester4000
Posted by: Garland
Examples of successful home defense:

One.

Two

Three.
*looks for examples of negotiation-resolved robberies as is implied would happen if all parties have a gun*
*doesn't find any*
*not the point*

The point is that the robbers were unable to use force to intimidate the homeowners into complying.
instead the homeowners used force to stop the burglars from complying with their wishes (ie: don't steal my stuff and get out of my house).
I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a counterpoint, unless you're trying to say the criminals are being victimised by the homeowners.

  • 12.17.2012 8:45 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: elsnben
Why do the the collectors need one that works?
Because they enjoy firing them.
Posted by: elsnben
all I'm saying is that banning weapons like assault rifles, SMG's and high caliber sniper rifles that are all operational isn't going to cause much of a problem, as the ones that want ones that are active, most likely want them for maliscious reasons.
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes. Saying that the people that want them all have malicious reasons is just plain factually wrong.

  • 12.17.2012 8:48 AM PDT


Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Sure... Knives kill too. And people would be discussing knives if they believed they were a serious problem in the US. The fact that you have to cite an example from another country, however, should be proof that most people do not believe that to be the case.
My point with that example is that spree killings still happen, even in countries where firearms are extremely regulated. It's the people that are the problem, not the tool used.
Of course they do. And of course it is. Again... I do not believe there is anyone arguing that.

You're never going to be able to fix the situation entirely. There will always be crazy people and there will always be weapons for them to use. But should we not do everything we can to prevent it from happening? If there are two parts to the equation (as I stated in my previous post) should we not take steps to correct both of them in an attempt to have the maximum possible impact on the problem?

  • 12.17.2012 8:48 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes.
wat?

  • 12.17.2012 8:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
In fact, I would be surprised if you could find as many examples from the rest of the world involving knivves as you can fins within the US alone involving guns.
Again, I think that mental health treatment and overzealous media attention contribute far more than the prevalence of guns.
Then you should aim to improve all contributing aspects in an attempt to do everything possible to prevent further massacres from happening.

A review of current gun restrictions is in order.
A review of media coverage and media sensationalism is in order.
A review of mental health treatment is in order.

And I believe a review of the effectiveness of the police force is in order as well.

You would have no need for weapons of self-defence if there was no one to defend yourself from.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 8:54 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 8:51 AM PDT

Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
In fact, I would be surprised if you could find as many examples from the rest of the world involving knivves as you can fins within the US alone involving guns.
Again, I think that mental health treatment and overzealous media attention contribute far more than the prevalence of guns.
Then you should aim to improve all contributing aspects in an attempt to do everything possible to prevent further massacres from happening.

A review of current gun restrictions is in order.
A review of media coverage and media sensationalism is in order.
A review of mental health treatment is in order.
This.

  • 12.17.2012 8:51 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Sure... Knives kill too. And people would be discussing knives if they believed they were a serious problem in the US. The fact that you have to cite an example from another country, however, should be proof that most people do not believe that to be the case.
My point with that example is that spree killings still happen, even in countries where firearms are extremely regulated. It's the people that are the problem, not the tool used.
Of course they do. And of course it is. Again... I do not believe there is anyone arguing that.
I dunno; I've seen too many Floodian's posts and hysterical news stories to the contrary.
Posted by: Big Black Bear
You're never going to be able to fix the situation entirely. There will always be crazy people and there will always be weapons for them to use.
That's true; that's why I believe that as many people as possible should have access to the most effective tools for self-defense.
Posted by: Big Black Bear
But should we not do everything we can to prevent it from happening? If there are two parts to the equation (as I stated in my previous post) should we not take steps to correct both of them in an attempt to have the maximum possible impact on the problem?
Yes, we should. But too many people are focusing on only one part (guns) and ignoring all the rest. We already have a lot of gun regulations; it's time to look at the other contributing factors.

  • 12.17.2012 8:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Garland
Those weapons (when owned legally) are literally never used in crimes.
wat?
There are a decent amount of crimes that are committed with actual assault rifles, machine guns, SMGs, and the like, but that's typically by gangs and drug cartels who bought them from the black market or simply stole them from the Mexican military. They certainly aren't legally owned, and any ban on such weapons would have zero effect on them.

I'm talking about legally owned firearms that are registered with the BATF; there is only 2 examples of crimes being committed with such weapons in the last 75 years.

  • 12.17.2012 8:55 AM PDT