Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

The only "stupid" (your word, not mine) opinions are those you can't coherently support or defend. Last time I checked, your failure to express yourself coherently and eloquently in a way that doesn't result in you either backtracking, contradicting yourself or just plain making sh*t up wasn't really my fault. I would say I'm sorry if you find my pointing out the inadequacy of your arguments offensive, but I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argonaut

From my short time here its painfully obvious that anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, stupid, ignorant

 

That's because what you're saying is wrong, stupid, and ignorant. Alongside the UK not "banning knives" overall, the London-NYC murder rate comparison is pretty spurious- based now only on one month's figures with a tiny margin:

 

6c4MJ3j.png

 

As January's statistic and the graph below suggests, the overall trend for NY is to have a much greater murder rate, and the gap narrowing being more todo with NY becoming much safer compared to it's violent reputation in the 80s/90s rather than London becoming like 'mobster New York'.

 

_100685629_chart-londonnymurdernumbers-r

 

 

So if there is nothing of value in your post, how the f*ck do you think people will react?

 

 

Further info: here, here, here and here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Input

I think it might be worth mentioning that knives aren't the only real threat here if the guns are gone. Guns and knives are the obvious choice of killing here.

 

However. What about fertilizer bombs? Homemade gunpowder? Thermite, napalm, nitroglycerin, pressure cookers... I mean the list goes on. And this is all crap you can make in your basement with common items. So while I'm all for at least banning AR's - dropping guns as a whole might just be opening Pandora's Box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twang.

when teachers will be allowed to hold guns will be when dissuasion had reached his paroxism. one has to be blind honestly not to see that dissuasion has reached its limits. first we had blade runner like sirens, then helicopters, then teachers in school holding weapons. i mean we are not far away from snake plissken world. seriously can you imagine the desastrous message on kids it would have. live in the fear of the other one, live in the fear horror can happen anytime. for me it's just pathetic.

mass slaughters are definitely an American problem. i mean we see these things only in America. some people, i wouldn't call them rednecks coz it's a bit injurious, but a bit redneck minded still, are in an absolutely incomprehensible way of thinking that consist of saying that when some Americans becomes politics, they potentially become tyrans. i don't know where that way of thinking take birth, but there's definitely a problem there. like if tomorrow a politics becomes mad, there won't be other politics, lawers, and security forces to halt him :dozing:.

also another important thing we rarely spot in pro/anti weapons debates. in the USA there's no illness coverage like in other countries, like in France for example. in France when you feel bad, or depressed you can go and see a psychiatrics. and you pay 0. you are totally covered. i heard that up to 10% of the Americans had important mental issues. if you let the disease grow up, then it can end up into an explosion

concerning the increasing violence, that contributes to increase the number of firearms around, as i said dissuasion shoudn't be seen as the remedy anymore. one should focus on prevention

- school programs for young kids. that explain the griefing, and the psycological damage of a rape/crime

- difficult buying course for automatic weapons

- ban of common cells. assimilated to torture by Europe. this is a HUman fundamental right, there's not even to argue about this. one thing is sure about, not only it's torture, but it's a subsequent offence springboard

- create a coverage for mental illnesses. so that people in need can heal themselves freely

 

that 'i need a gun to protect from tyrans' is really a mystery to me. i mean this is one of the very rare things the French i am doesn't understand. i don't understand that survivalist/parano mentality??

There's a rich and complicated history with Americans' distrust for authority and government. It all goes back to when large groups of immigrants came over from the 'Old Country.' The best example word be in the Appalachian region (parts of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee) where the majority of their ancestors came over to escape the constant wars in Scotland and Ireland. Upon arriving here, all they wanted to do was find a piece of land and live their lives. They did well enough for a few generations, but they then got f*cked over during the American Revolution, during which they were subject to many brutal attacks from the British as well as having no representation in the Continental Congress. Not to mention the region was a focal point of the US Civil War. It's not hard to see why the people living through such times would have a distrust of government, and that attitude is passed down through generations. I'm not from the region and I personally have a different perspective, but I have to respect that and maybe even admire it a bit.

 

For more information on this perspective on American history, check out Colin Woodard's book American Nations. It's really fascinating and will give good insight into why Americans seem to be 'splitting apart.' We've never really been one culture, but more a loose coalition of 10 or more cultures held together by a few centuries of (mostly) successful partnership. America's decline on the world stage has many Americans wondering whether or not the partnership is worth maintaining when we seem to have so many irreconcilable differences. So if the US splits, how will the borders be decided? Not in a board room over coffee and PowerPoints, I can guarantee that. There's a deep rift in this country, and aggressive gun control measures will only deepen it, not heal it. I see right-wingers radicalizing and can't help but feel I have something of a target on my back. It seems like today, the thing Americans are most afraid of are other Americans. I'm from a pretty rural area, so I'm surrounded by conservatives. They're all pretty mild-mannered and I'm not worried about them right now, but I can't be so sure they'll be so agreeable if something so central to their way of life is attacked. I would also rather not find out.

 

I personally have a little more faith in the power of effective government. What is not effective government, though, is Trump's kleptocracy. I'm a bit different from many of my compatriots. I'm liberal on a good day, edging on radical left when push comes to shove. I wholeheartedly believe in the political power of an armed populace. There are many leftist arguments in favor of guns, from Marx and Mao to Huey Newton. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and none of even the most basic reforms I'd like to see implemented have a chance if we give reactionaries all of the political power. It truly baffles me when liberals will march against X form of oppression but then the next day are trying to give those same oppressors a monopoly on the use of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

I'm not from the region and I personally have a different perspective, but I have to respect that and maybe even admire it a bit.

 

How DARE you... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

Pffft. We had guns in and around schools in the 70s and 80's and didn't have this problem.

 

It's not the guns. It's the people.

 

 

I mean, the UK is now banning knives. Look at Londons violent crime rate compared to the likes of NYC. Sounds stupid when you parrot it, but its true: when knives are outlawed only outlaws will have knives.

 

We have a problem and the solutions offered by .gov (and by a few select members of our beloved and highly liberal GTAF) are stupid at best and dangerous at worst.

 

What else should we ban? Clubs and rocks?

man it's not a people problem. why this happens only in America. i'm 40 years old, and i don't remember i heard about one of these things not even once here in France. but in France we take public security seriously (no offense. i have tremendous respect for the US, and its people) automatic weapons are almost impossible to acquire. you can acquire hunting weapons easily, but if you want a 9 mm for shooting range, you'll have to be motivated, and your judicial folder will be inspected with a magnifying glass. the result is there, when a guy blows up the fuses, he's fast, and easily apprehended, and without lot of damage. in France the Las Vegas dude wouldn't have made more than 10 deads max. beause he would have only a hunting rifle with low reloading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

However. What about fertilizer bombs? Homemade gunpowder? Thermite, napalm, nitroglycerin, pressure cookers...

Most homicides are not premeditated but emotionally driven, spur of the moment events. Assembling explosive devices requires significant premeditation which simply doesn't exist as a factor in a vast proportion of murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Input

 

However. What about fertilizer bombs? Homemade gunpowder? Thermite, napalm, nitroglycerin, pressure cookers...

Most homicides are not premeditated but emotionally driven, spur of the moment events. Assembling explosive devices requires significant premeditation which simply doesn't exist as a factor in a vast proportion of murders.

 

The same time it would take to go buy a gun, you could pick up diesel and fertilizer and throw together tons of it in a couple hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

However. What about fertilizer bombs? Homemade gunpowder? Thermite, napalm, nitroglycerin, pressure cookers...

Most homicides are not premeditated but emotionally driven, spur of the moment events. Assembling explosive devices requires significant premeditation which simply doesn't exist as a factor in a vast proportion of murders.

 

The same time it would take to go buy a gun, you could pick up diesel and fertilizer and throw together tons of it in a couple hours.

 

Both wrong and irrelevant.

 

Constructing a functioning explosive device capable of causing real harm is time-consuming, inexact and dangerous. Many people who try and home-build bombs end up killing or crippling themselves, and even those who manage to mix volatile chemicals together in the correct proportions to create a working device run through several iterations of prototyping to ensure that they detonate reliably. The Oklahoma City bomb, which was a fairly simple (albeit large) ANFO device, took two people three days to construct and more than six months to buy the raw materials for. If you think throwing a working explosive device together "in a couple of hours" is at all achievable for someone without significant prior experience and a well-prepped lab/workshop, you're frankly delusional.

 

All this is moot anyway because "going out to buy a gun to kill someone with" is also premeditation requiring a significant time investment. The point is that weapons, when used in spur-of-the-moment killings, are easily to hand for the aggressor. Unless you keep a stack of pipe bombs under your bed, that's not going to be the case with explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal

Look at Londons violent crime rate compared to the likes of NYC.

 

As pointed out earlier, unlike the 70s and 90s, NYC is a relatively safe city nowadays. It's been thoroughly gentrified. To say a major city's crime levels are comparable to 2018 NYC is sort of a compliment.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

 

Both wrong and irrelevant.

 

Constructing a functioning explosive device capable of causing real harm is time-consuming, inexact and dangerous. Many people who try and home-build bombs end up killing or crippling themselves, and even those who manage to mix volatile chemicals together in the correct proportions to create a working device run through several iterations of prototyping to ensure that they detonate reliably. The Oklahoma City bomb, which was a fairly simple (albeit large) ANFO device, took two people three days to construct and more than six months to buy the raw materials for. If you think throwing a working explosive device together "in a couple of hours" is at all achievable for someone without significant prior experience and a well-prepped lab/workshop, you're frankly delusional.

 

All this is moot anyway because "going out to buy a gun to kill someone with" is also premeditation requiring a significant time investment. The point is that weapons, when used in spur-of-the-moment killings, are easily to hand for the aggressor. Unless you keep a stack of pipe bombs under your bed, that's not going to be the case with explosives.

 

 

mass shooters, terrorist bombers, or car-rammers have in common they are suicidal, and coward. they want to die but they are too coward to do it. they seek an assistance (law enforcement) to reach their goal. but the difference between these, and it has been prooved by comparing what happens in different countries. mass shootings can easily be avoided. anticipating a bomber or a car-rammer is very difficult, while anticipating a mass shooting is very easy, we all know it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

mass shooters, terrorist bombers, or car-rammers have in common they are suicidal, and coward. they want to die but they are too coward to do it.

 

Citation needed, though. Cause I don't think there's any correlation between being suicidal and the motives of mass shooters/terrorist bombers/car rammers.

 

The police rammed a group of people a while back in the US. Are they suicidal too? That one f*cktard rammed and killed a woman that was protesting the nazis. Was he suicidal too?

Tell me more about the suicidal tendencies of terrorist bombers, and how they are not the product of their indocrination.

And for mass shooters, I'd wager they end up killing themselves in most of the events. So show me that they were suicidal.

 

And don't really know about coward, either. You need some balls to go and blow yourself up or shoot at a crowd. It's a cowardly act, for sure. But executing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

well for me it's obvious. one should be blind not to see such behaviors are commanded by auto-destruction. maybe it's more or less conscient, but when you go into such logicals, that means you're lead by auto-destruction. terrorrits have no balls at all. they are people in distress for the most, or financially, or emotionally that made the one error to go to a Daesh controlled territory. then once there, they are put to behead people, or whatever horror. these people once they have done this enter, a kind of auto-destruction logical, where death is the only possible escape.it has nothing to do with having balls

Edited by jpm1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

well for me it's obvious.

 

It doesn't matter what you think. Where's your research or any research showing the suicidal link between all of these cases?

 

 

one should be blind not to see such behaviors are commanded by auto-destruction. maybe it's more or less conscient, but when you go into such logicals, that means you're lead by auto-destruction.

 

You are literally saying then that all these mass murderers/terrorists/what have you are solely motivated by self-destruction? Cause I call bullsh*t. Show me the link.

 

 

they are people in distress for the most, or financially, or emotionally that made the one error to go to a Daesh controlled territory.

 

You do know terrorism existed well before Daesh, right? And it was also something practiced by many different groups of people, not only Muslim extremists, right?

 

Again, citation needed. Show me what you are basing your "logic" on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

who cares. is that so important to quote my posts twice? or maybe you want to show all around that i'm stupid, and my arguments not good. maybe i hit some nerve :whistle:. when you are going to do a bad thing, if you can't access easily to guns you give a chance to the worst not to happen. you want to keep a stupid, and obsolete amendment. fine. then keep watching your own suffering. meanwhile the world laugh while watching the desaster (sad truth :/ )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

who cares.

 

This is debates and discussion. You're usually expected to bring in a coherent argument and support it when challenged. This isn't the topic to take a dump of an opinion and walk away.

 

 

is that so important to quote my posts twice?

 

Because it's far easier to respond this way? Allows me to clearly focus on the stuff you say and knock them down.

 

 

maybe you want to show all around that i'm stupid, and my arguments not good

 

Don't think I need to do anything on that front, though. You seem to do pretty well for yourself.

 

 

when you are going to do a bad thing, if you can't access easily to guns you give a chance to the worst not to happen. you want to keep a stupid, and obsolete amendment. fine

 

Where did I say I want to keep the second amendment? Or repeal it? I'm started this reply chain by challenging your assertion that mass murderers/terrorist are driven by suicidal tendencies, and you failed to explain why.

I don't necessarily think repealing the second amendment is a great idea, at least not at this stage. I'm more for stronger control and regulations on all firearms, proper ID checks, database of checks shared across states to prevent you from buying things upstate, yearly licence renewal process to ensure you are still able/eligible to buy a gun etc.

 

It shouldn't be easier to buy a gun than to seek any sort of health care either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

 

mass shooters, terrorist bombers, or car-rammers have in common they are suicidal, and coward. they want to die but they are too coward to do it.

Citation needed, though. Cause I don't think there's any correlation between being suicidal and the motives of mass shooters/terrorist bombers/car rammers.

You see no correlation? Last week someone in Germany rammed his van into a terrace killing several people and then shot himself through the head. It's obvious that those who perpetrate mass killings are quite often suicidal. Many people pointed out that the fact that they caught Nikolas Cruz alive was rather unique, because most high school shooters kill themselves.

 

that mass murderers/terrorist are driven by suicidal tendencies, and you failed to explain why.

What is pretty much the case is that if you don't value, or if you wish to destroy, the humanity of others, this has an effect on how you see and value your own humanity.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

There's no correlation with being suicidal and being a mass killer, but there is the inverse if that makes sense. Lots of mass killers commit suicude, but an infinitesimally small proportion of people who commit suicide are mass killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

mass shooters, terrorist bombers, or car-rammers have in common they are suicidal, and coward. they want to die but they are too coward to do it.

Citation needed, though. Cause I don't think there's any correlation between being suicidal and the motives of mass shooters/terrorist bombers/car rammers.

You see no correlation? Last week someone in Germany rammed his van into a terrace killing several people and then shot himself through the head. It's obvious that those who perpetrate mass killings are quite often suicidal. Many people pointed out that the fact that they caught Nikolas Cruz alive was rather unique, because most high school shooters kill themselves.

 

Right, but the guy at the right-wing rally plowed his car through the crowd and killed a woman. He didn't commit suicide. The police in several instances have rammed people with their police cars. I don't see them being suicidal either.

 

His assertion was that they are suicidal, but too coward to take their own lives, so they commit these attacks in order to get killed by the police. Here:

 

 

they seek an assistance (law enforcement) to reach their goal.

 

And I was calling bullsh*t on that because, well, in most of those cases the perpetrator ends up killing themselves either by shooting themselves or by the means of their attack. So to say they are suicidal and that's the common link between them, is imo very misguided.

 

 

What is pretty much the case is that if you don't value, or if you wish to destroy, the humanity of others, this has an effect on how you see and value your own humanity.

 

Sure, but how does that lead to/is derived form suicidal tendencies? His argument implies that terrorist attacks are committed by suicidal terrorists who had previous suicidal tendencies. Ditto for mass shooters. I don't think suicidal tendencies was the main motivator for the majority of the mass shootings/terror attacks, which is what he is asserting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Out of the types of people who commit large violent attacks, I'd estimate that school shooters are probably the most consistently suicidal. I'm not really defending JPM1, but the fact that terrorism correlates with suicide is also pretty well established. JPM1 has also posted other somewhat inaccurate things like:

in France the Las Vegas dude wouldn't have made more than 10 deads max.

Does he remember what happened at the Bataclan, is what I wonder.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

i don't argue with agressive guys. i mean if i'm right or wrong is not the point. and i don't have time to waste. it's always the same track with pro 2nd amendment, or whatever laxist gun control law speech. they always need arguments while the evidence is in front of their eyes. they need weapons to protect themselves from the tyrannic government, of whatever other ***. they are the only country in the world to have such laxist gun control laws, and so many mass shootings. while other countries have restrictive laws, and extremelly rare similar cases. Bataclan is 4 - 5 mass shootings in what 60 years, USA it's 1000 mass shootings in 3 ½ years. and i still firmly think that guys that commit mass shootings are somewhere suicidal. maybe unconsciouly but they are

Edited by jpm1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

I'm not one who likes to pick up arguments but....

 

 

i don't argue with agressive guys.

But no one's "aggressive" here dude.

 

 

i mean if i'm right or wrong is not the point. and i don't have time to waste.

Um. Then why are you in THE "most time-consuming" Subforum in this entire place? The D&D is all about debates, discussions and arguments, which - should - means that you have to put in a good, though-out statement/argument/etc and present facts. Both of these things require actual time "to waste".

 

 

it's always the same track with pro 2nd amendment,

.... but no one's talking about the 2nd Amendment here currently but you. Tchuck was simply asking for a Citation of your "most gun attackers/Mass-Shooters have suicidal thoughs and wanna end their lives but are too much of a coward to end it themselves" statement, not your stance on guns themselves.

 

 

Chill the f*ck out dude. No one's "aggressive" but you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

i don't argue with agressive guys. i mean if i'm right or wrong is not the point. and i don't have time to waste. it's always the same track with pro 2nd amendment, or whatever laxist gun control law speech.

 

Nice strawman and thanks for ignoring all my points? I never said I was pro 2nd amendment, which I am not. I'm not even American or live in America.

 

 

they always need arguments while the evidence is in front of their eyes.

 

Because this is DEBATES and DISCUSSION. You are supposed to use arguments to make your case and contribute to the debate and discussion being had. Some things aren't as self-evident as you may claim.

 

 

Bataclan is 4 - 5 mass shootings in what 60 years, USA it's 1000 mass shootings in 3 ½ years

 

Uh, no? There's been just under 300 mass shootings in the past 60 years or so. 90 or so of those were in the US. There is a gun/mass shooting problem in america, I'm not disputing that. If you took the time to read my comments and my arguments, you'd understand that.

 

 

and i still firmly think that guys that commit mass shootings are somewhere suicidal.

 

That assertion I can understand. My issue was with you claiming that mass shooters/terrorist bombers/car rammers were all linked by their desire to commit suicide by cop. Which is what I asked you to explain why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

no offense but your behavior is too mathematical. you absolutely want arguments while i'm answering politely to you that i don't have, and that i'm solely basing on my conscience. for me the fact that there are much less mass shootings in my country which has very restrictive gun control laws is the only proof needed. very restrictive laws = very difficult to kill bunch of people at once = very easy for police to intercept. concerning the number of mass shooting in the US, these are number i took around, but it's not the first time i see these high numbers. yes, you never said you were for the 2nd amendment, but your answers made me think you were for it (now i know you're not)

Edited by jpm1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

But then you're assuming that restrictive gun control laws are enough to deter mass shootings, which I don't think is necessarily true specially in the case of America. Some countries have laws as lax as America's and don't have the same mass shooting issues. Switzerland used to require males to have Sig rifles in their homes for the defense of the country. Italy, Canada, have more open gun laws than France has, and never have had terrorist attacks/mass shootings like France has. (Italy did have the mafia causing issues every now and then).

 

The way I see it, the problem with America is far more related to guns being so ingrained with culture than simply weak gun laws. Media portrays as gun being the ultimate be all. Men use guns as a boost for their own personal insecurities. It gives them power, it gives them a feeling of safety. Certainly stronger regulations are necessary, because there's no strong reasons for possessions of certain types of guns and ammo. But also enforcement of those laws. Proper background checks. Better connection between states to increase the efficiency of these checks. And of course, better support for mental health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

The way I see it, the problem with America is far more related to guns being so ingrained with culture than simply weak gun laws.

This. Very much this. You can have all the tough-as-nails Gun Laws in existence, it won't do much if everyone thinks that owning a gun will make you a supernatural being who'll never find themselves in any sort of a problem.

 

You can clearly see that this is really an issue because, the moment someone brings Gun Control to the table (without even saying anything about said thing) and people will lose their sh*t. To them, Gun Control = Total removal of anything and everything that can fire something, like guns, which is obviously not the case. If the US want to deal with its Mass Shootings problem, its own Society needs to evolve. You ain't living in the Wild West anymore dammit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

^^^ It's more of the slippery slope thing, actually. At least in my case.

 

Look where UK is taking it...

 

http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/24/londoners-embrace-knife-control

 

turns out that when you pass laws disarming people in an attempt to prevent violence, criminals who habitually disregard all laws don't make exceptions for the new rules. In London, crime still thrives despite the U.K.'s tight gun controls and the British political class is now desperately turning its attention to restricting knives.

 

... Because criminals will be much more respectful of knife laws than of those targeted at firearms, I guess.

 

"We banned guns but there's still violence. WTF?"

 

It's not the guns. It's people. Duh. They will use guns knives screwdrivers vehicles etc.

 

I have no problem with sensible gun control.

 

Problem is .gov won't stop there. They don't want plebs to be able to stop their scope-creep and they know if people like Bundy have guns they won't be able to steal their property for the mineral rights or whatever a particular property might have.

 

IB4 arguments consisting of little fact and lots of name calling commence.

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

slippery slope thing

Pretty apt given:

 

 

Problem is .gov won't stop there. They don't want plebs to be able to stop their scope-creep

This kind of rhetoric (a slippery slope argument if I've ever seen one) has been floating around for a long time. People have been arguing that politicians seek to disarm the American populace since the 1968 Gun Control Act, but there's been no real substantive, permanent change in the availability of firearms (arguably the Brady Bill I suppose) since that point. I just don't get the rationale of claiming to be in favour of "sensible gun control"- your words- whilst simultaneously claiming that any form of additional regulation, regardless of its content, is exemplary of attempts to effectively eradicate firearm ownership entirely. From where I stand, the notion that the US government seeks to completely disarm the populace is completely without any merit. I'd be keen to see you try and justify this assertion because frankly it reads like an echoing of early nineties far-right militia movement conspiracy theories rather than anything based in evidence.

 

 

They will use guns knives screwdrivers vehicles etc.

For premeditated violence, perhaps, but nobody has provided a satisfactory explanation of why they believe knives, explosives or vehicles- the three common categories of "weapon" chosen to replace firearms were a hypothetical ban to actually exist- would lead to roughly the same number of violent deaths as firearms cause. The simple fact is that circa 80% of murders in the US involve firearms despite the prevalence of these other weapons; were they as efficient a tool for the average killer as firearms then you wouldn't expect such a disparity in use. And nominally, vehicles don't make particularly useful weapons for spur-of-the-moment, emotionally driven killings. You can't go from a blazing argument with your wife in the kitchen to mowing her down in your pickup without driving through quite a lot of house beforehand.

 

It's also worth pointing out that mortality rates for stabbing victims are much, much lower than for shooting victims. Eight percent versus thirty-three percent. So even assuming the same number of murder attempts took place in your hypothetically firearmless scenario, far fewer people would actually die:

 

 

The study, published online ahead of print in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, examined 4,122 patients taken to eight Level I and Level II adult trauma centers in Philadelphia between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. Of these, 2,961 were transported by EMS and 1,161 by the police. The overall mortality rate was 27.4 percent. Just over three quarters (77.9 percent) of the victims suffered gunshot wounds, and just under a quarter (22.1 percent) suffered stab wounds. The majority of patients in both groups (84.1 percent) had signs of life on delivery to the hospital. A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds.

 

I have no problem with sensible gun control.

Can we have an explanation of what this actually constitutes, in your eyes? Asserting you're in favour of sensible controls and then never defining what these sensible controls are does lead to me wondering whether you just use this statement as a platitude to try and deflect the accusation that no form of control would be reasonable to you. Far from "little fact and lots of name calling", I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to explain these facts and address any evidence- or logic-based rebuttals levelled at you, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FukNRekd

Sensible means background checks and sanity checks. But it doesn't stop there.

 

That a gun that looks meaner but fires the same as another gun makes it "ban-able" (there's that word again) is a joke. (Ausalt weapon ban from 90s)

 

That society feels the need to punish a 5th grader for making a gun shape with his fingers is a joke. (Or a piece of toast, whatever)

 

That .gov thinks banning guns will stop violence instead of promote it is a joke. (That didn't work, let's start restricting knives)

 

That people like you have the mentality that a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat is a joke. (Hint: it's NOT the spoon, it's the person using the spoon. The fat person will eat with a fork or their fingers if you ban spoons then forks.)

 

And just because something is old does not equate to outdated or wrong. Likely it's just the opposite.

Edited by FukNRekd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

That a gun that looks meaner but fires the same as another gun makes it "ban-able" (there's that word again) is a joke. (Ausalt weapon ban from 90s)

 

Show me where gun control advocates are making this argument.

 

 

That society feels the need to punish a 5th grader for making a gun shape with his fingers is a joke. (Or a piece of toast, whatever)

 

Show me where this has happened. And how this is relevant to gun control laws.

 

 

That .gov thinks banning guns[1] will stop violence instead of promote it is a joke. (That didn't work[2], let's start restricting knives)

 

[1] The government isn't talking about banning guns. Nor are any serious gun control advocates. We're talking about stronger regulations and limiting availability of certain types of firearms. If you could address the subject properly instead of building strawmen would be greatly appreciated.

 

[2] I'm gonna need a citation for how gun controls do not stop violence and instead promote it. Because I call bullsh*t.

 

 

That people like you have the mentality that a spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat is a joke.

 

Where in Crom's name did you get this from what sivis, or any other gun control advocate, are saying?

 

 

And just because something is old does not equate to outdated or wrong. Likely it's just the opposite.

 

Factually wrong, I'd say. I'd wager that most old customs end up becoming outdated and wrong, needing refreshment. When the second amendment dates from a time where slavery was ok, actually defending against tyrannical government was a thing, you couldn't simply pick up your musket and erase a group of people in seconds, it tells me that it badly needs updating. Why do you think it doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.