AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-01-19, 17:53   Link #1221
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
You think only America has rural areas? I am pointing out that America is not suppose to be some post apocalyptic wasteland where everyone is a cowboy.
No I didn't. But hey, every case is different.

Quote:
Let's face it, you want a gun because you know an American criminal is very likely already armed with firearm. You are not arming yourself to fight criminals; you are arming yourself because guns are too easy to obtain.

Too bad that a criminal would likely get the first shot in.
I don't own a gun. Your logic is incredible.
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 17:56   Link #1222
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
No I didn't. But hey, every case is different.



I don't own a gun. Your logic is incredible.
So you don't. Why don't you? As people on this thread said, you would likely be killed by any random thug before the cops can arrive. What's your reasoning for not owning a gun then? How about the need to form an armed militia when Obama declared himself Emperor and send drones with Hellfire missiles to patrol the skies?

Why not guns?
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now  
Old 2013-01-19, 17:59   Link #1223
Lightning_Wing
1.048596
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Location?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
How about the need to form an armed militia when Obama declared himself Emperor and send drones with Hellfire missiles to patrol the skies?
Ok...that's just incredibly likely. Totally.

And a gun will totally take down drones with Hellfire missiles. Of course.
__________________
Lightning_Wing is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:01   Link #1224
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
Once again, to your original point of why gun owner are demonized by some people: it's all about perception. The psychological impact of death from someone's getting shot, and someone dying of a cancer isn't the same. If one is shot in the head, his hope of surviving is very low. If someone has got cancer, there are all form of treatment to cause for optimism even if the odds are stacked against. From a logical point of view, I agree with you that death is death no matter how it was achieved. The counterpoint is, however, that even knowing we are all going to die eventually, I still should have a equal chance of fighting death even if I'm shot in the head point blank like another cancer patient.

What's the chance we are discussing this issue if the gravity of getting shot is as equal to getting a paper-cut?
I know your take and reasoning behind it, but what I'm looking for here is for the people like Vallen to present their take and reasoning on it. I don't like to repeat the questions, but then all I get are evasive response that doesn't answer what I was asking. You've given two direct responses in as many posts, so far I've got nothing from anyone else.

I agree with you that perception is a big factor, it's why some people are deathly afraid of flying in airplanes, but doesn't give a second thought about driving - even though statistically flying is far safer than driving. My point is that is it a good idea to draft laws and policies based on emotions like that?

To your specific counterpoint, I'd argue that the ability to own a gun gives one the choice to fight back. Now, I'm guessing you were talking more about people who does not want to own guns, but even then how is it any different than people who gets killed by drunk/texting drivers? All I'm trying to point out here is that there is a distinct double standard being applied here, and it's one where I see little logical reasoning to support.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:02   Link #1225
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
I'd like to address the issue of the rationale behind guns, and alcohol and tobacco.

The US tried Prohibition once. Far more violent crime and death resulted. So, from a purely logical standpoint looking at reducing lives lost, the rational response was to legalize alcohol.

Same with guns. If more lives are lost due to guns being legal (or at least lightly regulate), then the logical response in order to reduce death, is to ban/heavily regulate guns.

Note that, if we ban guns (or heavily regulate them), and after 10 years, the cost in lives is higher, then I would support loosening regulations on guns again. But how do we do banning or heavily regulating guns won't work, until we try? If we truly cannot compare the US to any other country, then the ONLY way to know if banning/heavily regulating guns will work in the US, is to try. All across the country.

To those who are gun rights people, would you at least be willing to test it out? Say, a period of 10-20 years (because we need adequate time for guns to be cleaned up and several years worth of results). I am willing to be proved wrong. Are you?
Kaijo is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:07   Link #1226
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
So you don't. Why don't you? As people on this thread said, you would likely be killed by any random thug before the cops can arrive. What's your reasoning for not owning a gun then? How about the need to form an armed militia when Obama declared himself Emperor and send drones with Hellfire missiles to patrol the skies?

Why not guns?
First off, I'm pointing out your constant blatant generalizations. I don't feel the need to carry a gun but there are certain people in other places that might need to. My area has less crime to a degree that, Sure I might die to someone shooting me. But I'm even more likely to die in a traffic accident. Should I not go outside?

Secondly, just because I may die anyways does not mean I should just let it happen. When it comes to death, options, regardless of how ineffective they are must be taken.

And of course your hyperbolic statements about defending against tyranny is lol. History has shown us that it's easier to conquer than to occupy. Hey, with all our drones and shit, we've certainly pacified Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Oh wait. Urban Warfare. A rebellion in the United States will be bloody. I mean how else did the US lose to Vietnam anyways? One reason is that the populace had huge opposition to the war.

If we're doing a doomsday scenario where the government is seized by some insane tyrant that's like Hitler and wants to nuke the world, then we're fucked. But in these cases, it'd doesn't matter anyways.
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:07   Link #1227
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing View Post
Ok...that's just incredibly likely. Totally.

And a gun will totally take down drones with Hellfire missiles. Of course.
Please read my previous posts in this thread for my position.
Quote:
And of course your hyperbolic statements about defending against tyranny is lol. History has shown us that it's easier to conquer than to occupy. Hey, with all our drones and shit, we've certainly pacified Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Oh wait. Urban Warfare. A rebellion in the United States will be bloody. I mean how else did the US lose to Vietnam anyways? One reason is that the populace had huge opposition to the war.
Population opposition has nothing to do with the number of guns they had. The point is always that there is no correlation between "fighting the tyrannical government" and "owning a gun". You are mistaken if you think resistance forces win because they stock up on guns in peacetime. And since there is no link, there is no argument.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:14   Link #1228
hyl
smile
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
What is your rationale that guns should be banned due to the number of deaths they caused, but alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy food shouldn't be, even though they result in far more deaths than guns?
IMO those 3 kind of deaths on yourself are "self inflicted". With the exception of alohol abuse in some cases, you are killing just yourself with tabacco and unhealthy food and not the people around you. Alcohol abuse is somewhat similar to how drugs abuse as it will kill the user on the long/short term, but the side effects of alcohol and drugs can kill others in certain situations.
hyl is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:14   Link #1229
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
To those who are gun rights people, would you at least be willing to test it out? Say, a period of 10-20 years (because we need adequate time for guns to be cleaned up and several years worth of results). I am willing to be proved wrong. Are you?
Well, technically we had an AWB for 10 years, but I know what you mean.

As as purely theoretical experiment, I would be interested to see what the result would be. Unfortunately, I'd say even you would agree that what you're proposing isn't very practical with how our legal/political system is setup. Maybe if we were a totalitarian regime, it'd be doable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyl View Post
IMO those 3 kind of deaths on yourself are "self inflicted". With the exception of alohol abuse in some cases, you are killing just yourself with tabacco and unhealthy food and not the people around you.
Indeed, but then the gun death figure also includes suicides, which are certainly self-inflicted as well. Many drunk driving fatalities are not self-inflicted, nor are those that die from second-hand smoke, kids certainly didn't decide they want to be born diabetic, or have parents who stuff them with nothing but junk food.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:19   Link #1230
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Population opposition has nothing to do with the number of guns they had. The point is always that there is no correlation between "fighting the tyrannical government" and "owning a gun". You are mistaken if you think resistance forces win because they stock up on guns in peacetime. And since there is no link, there is no argument.
Hmm, I guess armed resistance involves hitting them with a rubber chicken then?
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:19   Link #1231
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
The difference between gun deaths and alcohol deaths is that alcohol deaths are accidental, gun deaths are (usually) intentional. One a crime of omission, the other of commission.

People view the two under seperate categories. Alchohol related deaths are caused by "negligence", while gun related deaths is caused by "evil". Evil is judged much more severely then negligence.

Similar arguments also apply to Terrorism. Far less people die to terrorism then to drunk driving, and yet look at the how much money is spent on counter-terrorism...

For what it's worth, drunk driving is about 20k deaths a year, and gun related deaths is 30k a year, but 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicides.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:25   Link #1232
hyl
smile
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Indeed, but then the gun death figure also includes suicides, which are certainly self-inflicted as well.
TBH does it even matter in what way or how someone suicides? If they were really desperate and didn't have acces to a gun, they could have easily killed themselves in another way.
hyl is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:26   Link #1233
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
Hmm, I guess armed resistance involves hitting them with a rubber chicken then?
It doesn't involve stocking up a private armoury, that's for sure. Quite simply it's not how an insurgence work.
Quote:
TBH does it even matter in what way someone suicides? If they didn't have acces to a gun, they could have killed themselves in another way.
Guns makes the decision easier. The longer it takes to plan around the act of suicide, the more time to back out of it. This is why certain pills are packed individually; by the time someone took all the pills out of the foil they usually got over it.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:27   Link #1234
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The difference between gun deaths and alcohol deaths is that alcohol deaths are accidental, gun deaths are (usually) intentional. One a crime of omission, the other of commission.

People view the two under seperate categories. Alchohol related deaths are caused by "negligence", while gun related deaths is caused by "evil". Evil is judged much more severely then negligence.

Similar arguments also apply to Terrorism. Far less people die to terrorism then to drunk driving, and yet look at the how much money is spent on counter-terrorism...
Which pretty much falls in line what what monir said = perception.

But there is a clear distinction here - in one you blame the root cause of of said death - the driver who decided to get drunk and get in a car, yet in the other you're blaming the tool - the gun the criminal used.

Again, I understand the sentiment, but is it a good way to craft your policies based on emotions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyl View Post
TBH does it even matter in what way someone suicides? If they were really desperate and didn't have acces to a gun, they could have easily killed themselves in another way.
Indeed, that's my thought as well. But that hasn't stopped people blaming the suicide on the guns
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:28   Link #1235
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Okay, so if the president would be impeached if he attempts to become a dictator or tyrant and seize power, then what need have we for guns to defend us from tyranny?
Because if the system fails, we need to have parity with at least infantry so that we may remove said dictator.
It is as simple as that.
Without arms to wage war against such a dictatorship we have little or no chance of removal.

Quote:
Because the bare minimum I see, if I wanted a populace that could adequately challenge the military, are surface-to-air missiles.
That comment is ridiculous.
The Mohajadeen defeated the Soviet military with only small arms, after 27 years of war and the Soviets were using tanks, attack helicopters, and the like. In fact, we are losing in Afghanistan to similar forces.

Quote:
Ah, good some information. And I'll agree with some of it. I'll note that, as the video explains, Britain includes far more crimes under it's "violent crime" statistic, then the US does. So even though Britain may have a higher violent crime rate, it is only because it is counting many more crimes than the US doesn't.
Which is precisely why I omitted their crimes that didn't involve a weapon in order to have some measure of parity with US violent crime.

Quote:
So gun violence is difficult to compare, but deaths and homicides aren't.
Yes, primarily because the "gun murders" in the US aren't not broken down by illegal firearms, criminal on criminal murders, and gang related murders. If we are going to talk about infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, then we have to find the numbers for them. Meaning how many murders are non-gang, non-criminal on criminal, and non-legal weapons.
That becomes something of a chore and then attempting to compare that to the UK which uses their own method of criminal statistics poisons the waters even further.
Thus it really does become an "apples to oranges" scenario since we are talking about making policy based on statistics that are not compatible in the first place when any attempt at being specific is tried.
Thus we are stuck with generalities like violent crime.

Quote:
Well, if we are going to claim that we can't compare ourselves to other countries because of differences, then we can't compare states, either. After all, many states have vastly different attitudes and cultures (See: red states and blue states). Thus, following that line of logic, we can't compare anything, and thus no numbers anywhere have any meaning.
That is a complete non sequitur.
The crime reports within the US are uniform, and thus states can be compared.

Quote:
What are we left with? Feelings.
Only on the extreme end of the argument for gun control.
I've yet to read any study that definitely shows any benefit from gun control, and I've read quite a few, some even suggested here in this thread.

What we are actually left with is the question: "Does this policy infringe on the rights of citizens?"
Short answer with regard to current gun control proposals is yes.
As I have already illustrated.

Quote:
I generally find that people who want to toss out all science and data and numbers and reduce the discussion to just feelings, do that for a reason. It is easier to argue a position, if you forbid the other side from using data that supports their position.
Who is tossing out the data?
I'm just using the data that is most compatable because it is the only way I've seen thus far to make any sort of accurate comparison.
The UK has been declared the most dangerous country in Europe, and according to the Telegraph has more violent crime than the US. I'd say they would know.

Quote:
Oh, I never said that a knife couldn't be deadly. But you'll notice that 8 people dead, is a smaller number than 26. Given the choice, which would you prefer? Because my thought is: let's reduce deaths as much as we can. Even if we can't hit 0, a lower number is better than a higher number. Wouldn 't you agree?
Which is precisely why we need armed teachers, guards, and administrators in schools.
That way, it doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is, there is a chance of reducing the number of dead significantly. Whereas no ban on any gun will do that as even Mayor Bloomberg has admitted with regard to the Newtown shooting.

Quote:
I'd love to, and ban handguns (shotguns and rifles are okay for hunting and sports). Unfortunately, I have to deal with the reality that people are emotional, and so we have to balance what works, with what they want. For instance, we have to do something to combat gun crime, with the emotional position that people want their guns.
No, you have to deal with the reality that the 2nd amendment hasn't been repealed or revised.
There is no such thing as "gun crime" that is another made up term used by hoplophobes.

Quote:
And for what it is worth, I feel the assault weapons ban is pointless, too. Handguns are the biggest issue. So, as I have said before, either a handgun ban, or requirement to use smart gun technology.
If a handgun ban would work, Chicago wouldn't be the warzone it is right now.
CCW permits have worked best, and that is the path we as a nation need to follow, lest the violent crime skyrocket and get worse.


Quote:
Then prove me wrong.
I already have, whether you'll accept it or not is moot.

Quote:
Change wikipedia with your reasoning and your sources.
Wikipedia is NOT a valid source of information, especially when dealing with politically charged subjects such as gun control.

Quote:
At this point, I haven't seen an y published studies, or peer-reviewed papers, that contradict the studies and papers that I have seen. It's as simple as that.
Oh, well, here is one for you by Professor Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates.


Quote:
But that's not the point, is it? the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about whether certain arms are okay simply because the police have it. in fact, a militia is not a police force; it is a military force. Thus, the arms we should be allowed to have, via the 2nd amendment, are military-grade arms.
That is correct, and the police currently have military-grade arms, so you just made my point for me that miliary arms are what are protected and thus any ban on them is unconstitutional.

Quote:
But you bring up a good point that I mentioned before... the 2nd amendment ultimately doesn't matter, because it is what the SCOTUS says. They banned you from having some arms, in defiance of the 2nd amendment.
SCOTUS did not such thing.
In fact in the DC vs Heller case they affirmed the 2nd amendment to be a protection of an individual right and deferred to US vs Miller as to what arms are protected.
Here is Scalia's opinion:

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 4754.


Thus military style weapons are not bannable.
Now, since a .38 caliber revolver is the most used pistol/firearm in violent crime/murder, that would be the best weapon to ban, since it is not a military weapon it is not protected under either Heller, or the Miller decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Whether the US citizenry would tolerate it is besides the point. Under the constitution, by your definition, a citizen would have the right to own nerve gas. It is a weapon, that can put down an insurrection, or defend against an invader.
How many times do I have to tell you it is not my definition.
It is SCOTUS that set the bar in US vs. Miller, not I.
Nerve gas is not used by miltia forces.

Quote:
Part of the nature of the constitution is to defend individual rights against the "tyranny of the majority". How is banning assault weapons because "the majority doesn't like it" any different from banning nerve gas?
Tryanny comes in many forms, not just the so called "tyranny of the majority."
And there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" that is a propaganda term like Edward Bernays' "Torches of Freedom." Same type of nonsense.

Quote:
Where a paramilitary ends and a crime gang begins is very fuzzy line. Both aim to use physical force and intimidation to achieve certain ends. And like Paramilitaries, many are formed on ethnic lines. Interestingly, if we look at Chinese history (before the 20th century), every single rebel movement originated with organized crime gangs ("secret societies"). Even today Chinese triads have oaths pertaining to the triad's original political goals when it was formed. For instance, quite a number of oaths to restore the Ming dynasty, which at this point are largely meaningless.

Certainly anything done should be gradual. But I think americans should be wary of any paramilitary organizations with a mission statement to "protect liberty".
I agree, which is why there is such a need in this country to reinvigorate the actual (Article 1, Section 8) militia, so as to put an end to what remains of the paramilitary groups like the Aryan Nations and such.

Quote:
Certainly, but America is not a tyranny yet, and the democratic process must be used to overturn these things. But while the actions of Bush & company are cause for alarm, the paramilitaries won't help. If Paramilitaries were successful in overthrowing the state, their first order of business would be to establish a theocratic police state along the lines of Iran.
And further erosion of the 2nd amendment would only hasten that slide towards a "secure" society, be it theocratic under Grover Norquist's Dominionist movement, or Statist under George Soros' more socialistic movements. Tyranny comes from both the left and the right, make no mistake about that.
Pope Gregory IX's inquisition was no different than Stalin's reign of terror in my opinion.

Quote:
Not entirely true. When the United States declared independence it did so through the already existing colonial governments at the time. It was not a case of paramilitaries fighting the government, but rather a government (the colonies) fighting an independence war from another government (Britain) using irregular troops. There was continuity between the government before independence, and the new American government, and in fact the American legal system is a descendant of the British legal system at the time. The elected leaders of the colonies before independence remained the elected leaders after independence.

In fact the founders were highly wary of "popular revolutions" as would later be seen in France, where you do have a genuine case of paramilitaries completely overthrowing the government and starting a new regime, and ultimately what we saw there was tyranny of the worst kind.

I don't think it's correct to strictly call the American "Patriots" paramilitaries, as they were organized by a government.

If Americans were to take up arms against the government it would not be like 1776, but a lot more like 1789.
See now that is what scares the crap out of me on the issue of revolution in the US.
I don't welcome it.
I don't view it as some grandiose thing, and I sure as hell don't want it.
However, there is a point where many citizens will not tolerate what is viewed as infringement and/or degradation of their rights.
As Bill Maher pointed out, ALL of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights (I'll add, including the 2nd amendment) except the 3rd, have been horribly undermined. And contrary to what Bill said, there are many of all poltical persuations that see it, and are sick of it as can be seen in the people's distrust of government being at an all time high.
The problem has been, IMHO, that people trusted the media, the judges, and their politicians to do what was right rather than what certain big-money interests preferred.
That has led to much of the mess we are in as a whole in this country.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:28   Link #1236
monir
cho~ kakkoii
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
To your specific counterpoint, I'd argue that the ability to own a gun gives one the choice to fight back. Now, I'm guessing you were talking more about people who does not want to own guns, but even then how is it any different than people who gets killed by drunk/texting drivers? All I'm trying to point out here is that there is a distinct double standard being applied here, and it's one where I see little logical reasoning to support.
Actually my counterpoint is even more stripped down to make a point for the comparison between death caused by guns and death caused by consumable goods such as tobacco and alcohol. My counterpoint was to show that if I'm shot in the head, what's my chance of escaping imminent death? The answer is not very good. But if I smoked a pack of cigarette a day, and then get lung cancer twenty years later, I'm still not facing imminent death. If I'm shot in the head, a gun on my hand won't do me any good. If I got cancer, I can still seek treatments and the like to prolong my life.

Cause and effect of use of a gun represent such finality that is hardly seen in modern human history.

I, however, agree that banning guns in America isn't going to be a reality any time soon, probably not in our lifetime anyway. We will have to come out with other measures where we can allow responsible people to own guns, and at the same time find ways to keep those people away from deadly device who want to kill a lot of people for whatever reason. Lowering violence and death, gun-related or otherwise, is another can of worms.

Btw, to make an unrelated point, the death caused by texting/drunk-driving will go down even lower in the near future when more and more states figure out the legislative measures to allow automated, self-driving vehicles. Two states are already allowing the use of automated cars. We may need to invent something similar to guns, perhaps like a Dominator from Psycho Pass?
__________________
Eat and sleep! And Solace. Sig by RRW.
Space Brothers Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.
monir is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:32   Link #1237
Demi.
Ass connoisseur
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
You think only America has rural areas? I am pointing out that America is not suppose to be some post apocalyptic wasteland where everyone is a cowboy.

Let's face it, you want a gun because you know an American criminal is very likely already armed with firearm. You are not arming yourself to fight criminals; you are arming yourself because guns are too easy to obtain.

Too bad that a criminal would likely get the first shot in.
Exactly, you're arming yourself to defend yourself against a criminal. One who is very unlikely to be a law abiding citizen and throw away his gun should they ever be banned. Guns will always be easy to obtain for criminals; they may go up in price as more are moved out of circulation, but they will always have the means to obtain them. Meanwhile, those who choose to defend themselves with a firearm have no means of access to these guns without doing so illegally. Regardless, whether he is using a knife or a gun to break in, a gun is still the better option to defend yourself with. I'd rather not get stabbed, tyvm.

And that's simply not true. You have the fortification of your own house. If you catch him before he completely breaks in, you've already won. If you have a firearm and are not afraid to use it, that it.
__________________
Demi. is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:34   Link #1238
Archon_Wing
Throw it on the ground
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Mists
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
It doesn't involve stocking up a private armoury, that's for sure. Quite simply it's not how an insurgence work.
You miss my point. You cannot have an armed uprising without arms.

We're not talking about a force of rebels suiciding into the superior "loyalist force". If a widespread uprising were to occur, there would be riots everywhere, and that in itself would be hard to stop. If a single city riot can make the news, what can be said about many? Not to mention I believe the all volunteer military of the United States would be hesitant to slaughter its own fellow citizenry.

Also, please fix your quotes so that it is clear who you're replying to.
__________________
You just try again... through the darkness.You just go away... the future is waiting for us!
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:35   Link #1239
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
Actually my counterpoint is even more stripped down to make a point for the comparison between death caused by guns and death caused by consumable goods such as tobacco and alcohol. My counterpoint was to show that if I'm shot in the head, what's my chance of escaping imminent death? The answer is not very good. But if I smoked a pack of cigarette a day, and then get lung cancer twenty years later, I'm still not facing imminent death. If I'm shot in the head, a gun on my hand won't do me any good. If I got cancer, I can still seek treatments and the like to prolong my life.
That's indeed true, though it mostly applies for the self-inflicted portion of those deaths, and not so much for those who gets t-boned by a drunk driver for example.

Quote:
Btw, to make an unrelated point, the death caused by texting/drunk-driving will go down even lower in the near future when more and more states figure out the legislative measures to allow automated, self-driving vehicles. Two states are already allowing the use of automated cars.
Until one inevitably malfunctions and causes an accident, leading to one hell of a /popcorn lawsuit.

Quote:
We may need to invent something similar to guns, perhaps like a Dominator from Psycho Pass?
But then it won't work against the Makishimas of the world!
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2013-01-19, 18:44   Link #1240
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Hey gun people...

Quote:
2 Hurt in Accidental Shooting at NC Gun Show

Officials say two people were accidentally shot and wounded at a gun show at the North Carolina state fairgrounds.

It happened Saturday at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people to the fairgrounds in Raleigh.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/h...-show-18259364

Why so nervous?
Kyuu is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.