Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

463 replies to this topic
Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#451

Posted A week ago

 

I think the main reason why Americans are so addicted to their guns is the constant fear mongering in the country. The fear of getting robbed or hurt. The fear of becoming a violent crime victim. Cause then you can only protect yourself with a gun. Doesn't matter how safe your surroundings and your neigbourhood are. This combined with the "it's my right to own guns" mentality. But also the fear of not being able to pay for hospital/med bills. The fear of foreign people. The fear of terror. The fear of other races. Combined with a lot of ignorance, an often really weird world view and a media that spreads fear 24/7. Not only an American problem of course but it's on a whole different level in the United States.
 
Rockstar is actually doing a good job of portraying America in GTA. While exaggerated of course, the portrayal of NPCs on the streets and the TV shows and especially the commercials are not far from reality. I was amazed when I visited New York for the first time a few years ago and watched TV in my hotel room. The commercials are full of fear mongering Insurance companies, debt settlement companies and pharma marketers. This, combined with a lot of often very stupid and dangerous patriotism. A fear cocktail par excellence. And with guns it's no different. The ratio between fear and patriotism is a bit different here tho.

I think your overstating fear being the main reason why the United States has the gun culture that it does. If most people really bought guns out of pure fear, they'd go for the cheapest and practical choices which is the case for some. For others it is also a hobby of collecting.

There's all sorts of gimmicky or antiquated guns that are realistically outclassed with just about everything else available. But at the end of the day, people will still buy them. Not because of fear or out of percieved necessity, but because they can.

Of course there are those overly patriotic types who view guns as the only way to protect themselves from the government or have doomsday fantasies but they do not represent the mentality of all gun owners.

 

 

Yeah I see a lot of gun owners try to distance themselves from this type of ideology, but in the end they're still kind of benefiting from it any time they go to WalMart and pickup a long-gun with zero registration and simply a call to the ATF. I mean, any time you start talking about gun control, it doesn't really need to be an "overly patriotic" type to bring up their "right" to bear arms.  There's too many gun owners that acknowledge the dangers of unrestricted access to firearms, but then when it comes down to limiting THEIR person level of access, it all becomes about their "right to bear arms" again.  They want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

I mean I think one great example is any time someone likens it to getting a driver's license and operating a motor vehicle, gun owners immediately jump to the idea of "Well I have a right to defend myself," or, "I have a right to own this," and start trumpeting the 2nd Amendment.  However, just moments before that, they will probably have admitted to taking a gun safety course of their own fruition because they recognize the dangers of just willy-nilly going and buying a firearm with zero training or research.  So it's like while they will simultaneously acknowledge that guns are dangerous and that it's prudent to have training and be qualified to handle them, they will then also advocate for the ability for any dumbass to go to Walmart and buy one the same day he gets his Budweiser.  'Cause that's his right as an American!

 

I mean I don't intend to cast all 2A supporters in that light, but I think there are some gun owners who just stand behind the 2A as way to defend a position they know is stupid and foolish.  They KNOW people shouldn't just go buy a firearm, get drunk, go out to the woods and shoot it for the first time without even setting up a proper backstop or whatever else kind of dumbassery leads to 20,000 odd self-inflicted gunshot wounds a year ( hard to tell how many of those are intentional though ).  Meanwhile, they'll sit there and defend until they're out of breath the exact lack of sensible restrictions that allows that type of dumbassery to continue, but usually just shouting catchy buzzwords and quips they read in a NRA newsletter.  'Guns don't kill people, people kill people!'  Kind of funny though how whenever someone dies in a drunk driving accident they don't say, "Cars and alcohol don't kill people, people kill people," but instead enact sensible legislation that limits how often people kill people with cars and alcohol.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#452

Posted A week ago

the 2 arguments that come often, not to say every time are, we need guns in case our government has gone mad, and becomes tyrannic, and mass shootings happen rarely. first argument nearly convinced me once. because i checked, and i noticed that during their history the CIA has made really, really bad things there. these dumbs even made experiments on the American population without their consentment. but we are in 2017, and these things just can't happen anymore. concerning the second argument. well one has to be blind not to see that these things happen regularly like a fatality in the US.

once i saw an article of a guy that was in a supermarket in the US. the guy was wearing a handgun at the hip. just like the police does. the gun was visible by all. a child behind the guy asked his mom, what was that thing about. and the mom answered, well if a bad guy comes around, the gun holder will be able to stop him and save innocent lives. i was really blown away by such mentality. i mean i find this very, very insane. this is cops job. only them should be allowed to use firearms in public places. plus seriously do they really think, it will reduce criminality. i mean that mentality is nearly sy-fy for me. if you want less weapons in public areas, you just need not to buy them. in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. when it happens it's only about narco conflicts for the most, and it happens once every 6 months. most often more. and it's not mass shooting, it's about one dead max. there's only one difference between France/Europe and the USA, the gun control policy


Caysle
  • Caysle

    The Stroke

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2011
  • None

#453

Posted A week ago

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 

Seriously?

  • _47_ likes this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#454

Posted A week ago Edited by jpm1, A week ago.

yeah. it's extremelly rare here. only people that can wear war weapons are the police, the gendarmerie (rural police), and the military. if you carry a hunting weapon in your vehicle it has to be or locked or dismantled. when you hear about gun shooting somewhere, it's narco traffic related most of the time. but it's very rare. i think this is the same thing for most of European countries like Germany, England, Switzerland..

  • Tchuck and Caysle like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Nškyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#455

Posted A week ago

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 
Seriously?
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in France- 2.83
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in the US- 10.54.

That said, by European standards the firearm death rate in France is quite high. In the UK it's 0.23, in Germany 1.01. Even in Finland, where there's more guns per capita that pretty much anywhere in the world bar the US, it's 3.25.
  • Tchuck and Caysle like this

_47_
  • _47_

    Candidate for Augmentation

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#456

Posted A week ago Edited by _47_, A week ago.

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#457

Posted A week ago

 

 

in France where firearms are stricly regulated, we almost never hear of shootings. 

 
Seriously?
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in France- 2.83
Firearm death rate per 100,000 citizens in the US- 10.54.

That said, by European standards the firearm death rate in France is quite high. In the UK it's 0.23, in Germany 1.01. Even in Finland, where there's more guns per capita that pretty much anywhere in the world bar the US, it's 3.25.

 

 

i think your numbers include suicides. i don't spend my time watching news channels. but i do it regularly, and it's very rare when they talk about homicides. according to french wiki. for the year 1999. the deaths by firearms in France were ~2600. categorized as follows: 78% suicide, 6% homicides, 4% accidents, and 12% could not be categorized. and if you ask me about last mass murder i heard about in France. if you put beside psycho pseudo-religious acts honestly i can't even remember i ever witnessed one event during my whole life. or yeah, i remember one. it was a psychotic teenager. he bought his ak-47 piece by piece on the net and mounted the whole thing from scratch. it was a psychotic guy, that was a war stuff fanatic

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

i have a simple question. what is exactly that 2nd amendment about, i mean in 2017. during the war against the British, and the country birth, that amendment was fully justified. but seriously which civilian in 2017 needs a M-16 or an Ak in his lockout


_47_
  • _47_

    Candidate for Augmentation

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#458

Posted A week ago Edited by _47_, A week ago.

i have a simple question. what is exactly that 2nd amendment about, i mean in 2017. during the war against the British, and the country birth, that amendment was fully justified. but seriously which civilian in 2017 needs a M-16 or an Ak in his lockout

 

 

The answer is simple.

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads

 

 

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bearArms, shall not be infringed.

 

The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in thetime of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military     should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

 

In summary - Right to bear arms in defense of life- limb / property/ a tyrannical government

 

That is just the basic description. Laws have since been made to ban full-auto rifles and military grade explosives and crew serve machine guns.

 

Just because someone has a AK-47/ AR-15 (M-4) 9 times out of 10 that rifle will be limited in how it fires rounds. 

 

Any person that has weapons greater than what I listed above have paid a lot of money to get a Class 3 license to operate or maintain those restricted weapons and VERY few people have that license to carry lethal weapons besides the military and state/government agencies.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#459

Posted A week ago

do you seriously think your country is under such treat. tyrannical governement in the us -> no way, foreign army invasion of the us -> no way. do you think people do not think of invading your country because it has well structured milicias, or because it has intercontinental nuclear missiles, B2s and B1s ;). i mean is it milicians that operate these toys. milicias are a suvivalists thing maybe, but they do not fit in actual modern world. even in actual dark financial crisis period, even it someday the SHTF (like they say) western countries structures won't fall totally. there will still be a minimal military and political structure remaining. but that era is not to happen anytime soon imo. and meanwhile you have psychos doing shootings like Las vegas one


_47_
  • _47_

    Candidate for Augmentation

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#460

Posted A week ago

do you seriously think your country is under such treat. tyrannical governement in the us -> no way, foreign army invasion of the us -> no way. do you think people do not think of invading your country because it has well structured milicias, or because it has intercontinental nuclear missiles, B2s and B1s ;). i mean is it milicians that operate these toys. milicias are a suvivalists thing maybe, but they do not fit in actual modern world. even in actual dark financial crisis period, even it someday the SHTF (like they say) western countries structures won't fall totally. there will still be a minimal military and political structure remaining. but that era is not to happen anytime soon imo. and meanwhile you have psychos doing shootings like Las vegas one

Either way the Rill of Rights/Constitution are the founding principles that made the USA what it is today. I am a responsible gun owner myself, I'm not going to all of a sudden change my mind about it because a few nut jobs slip through the cracks or people aren't smart about using a firearm.

 

They need to make background checks more intrusive so the police know who the person behind the firearm is.

  • jpm1 likes this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#461

Posted A week ago

Is it ok to cherrypick what you want out of the constitution? Because clearly America is infringing on this:

 

 

and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up 

 

America has what, the second/third standing army in the world, plus the one of the largest spending in military...

 

 

They need to make background checks more intrusive so the police know who the person behind the firearm is.

 

This is largely what gun control is about. No-one is going around asking for guns to be banned, because we know that that is a stupid thing to do that will fix nothing. All we are wanting is stricter regulations on purchases, private or otherwise. The fact that you can just go into a gunshow and buy pretty much whatever you want with zero control is mindboggling. 

  • _47_ likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ô

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#462

Posted A week ago Edited by El Diablo, A week ago.

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

this doesn't make any sense.

we already have regulations on the books which diminish and interfere with the 2nd Amendment... the same way we have regulations which place restrictions on every single other Amendment in the Constitution. when you have a problem you address the laws. the 2nd Amendment is not any more special than those that came after it.


Saggy
  • Saggy

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#463

Posted A week ago

 

I'm all for Gun Control in the U.S. as long as it does not interfere with or diminish the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

this doesn't make any sense.

we already have regulations on the books which diminish and interfere with the 2nd Amendment... the same way we have regulations which place restrictions on every single other Amendment in the Constitution. when you have a problem you address the laws. the 2nd Amendment is not any more special than those that came after it.

 

 

Pretty sure what he's saying is that he doesn't oppose restrictions so long as the intention of the 2nd Amendment is not impeded, and in this context the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the american populace to form a deterrent against tyrannical government actions and operate as another check-and-balance against government.

 

So, for example...  Taking his criteria extremely literally, you could impose a law tomorrow that said all Americans can have 1 unregistered firearm without special training or dispensation, but every subsequent firearm after that must be registered and the permission to own it dispensed after qualification to own more than 1 firearm was proven.

 

You'd maintain an armed populace that the evil tyrannical boogeymen don't want to f*ck with, but also more sensible restrictions to stem the proliferation of firearms through the U.S.

 

Of course there's glaring flaws with that model, but it wouldn't impede on the intent of the 2nd Amendment and would impose extremely strict restrictions.   So it can be done, it's just not exactly prudent, and there would have to be a more sophisticated model for it to really work.

 

But good luck discussing that elusive model when the conversation always devolves into, "From my cold dead hands," and rhetoric like that.  The very moment you start discussing things like how many firearms, or what type of firearms we can have, that's when people start talking about "slippery slopes" and disarmament.


Vanzant
  • Vanzant

    おっぱい 23V

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2005
  • United-States

#464

Posted 5 days ago

Just a reminder the D&D section requires replies related to the discussion without posting cartoons and memes.

 

Thanks for understanding! :)

  • p∞ntang likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users