It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:42 am 
Offline
Level: 41 Obama Supporter
HP: 860 / 5376
860 / 5376
MP: 2567 / 2567
2567 / 2567
EXP: 2685 / 2806
2685 / 2806
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:42 pm
Posts: 2685
Location: New Jersey
Nintendo ID: Bokuten
Ax wrote:
And as pointed out above, automobiles also save countless lives too.

So do guns. Cars are great ways of transporting a person who is hurt to a hospital or getting someone who is sick/ giving birth to the hospital. Guns also save lives buy killing someone who is going to either kill someone else or kill a group of people. I can go back and forth with this if you like.

Blokeymon wrote:
>automobile accidents
>accidents

Just pissed on your own argument, son.


No I didn't. People have accidents with guns as well and they are deemed accidents. I think we use automobile accidents as a general term these days because if someone crashes a car we assume it is an accident but people can use cars to kill people and you can do more harm with a car than you can with a gun. The fact is anything can be used as a weapon to kill someone with and if you take one thing away something else will become popular and then a ban for that item will be tossed around. The only thing that you would be taking away in this case is legally owned firearms. There are millions if not billions of guns in the US and I bet there are millions of illegal guns that people can easily get just like how people were able to get alcohol in the prohibition days. With 3D printers becoming a thing you can just print AR-15 receivers and get all the other parts legally without having a gun license and defense distributed has proven that these receivers can shoot thousands of rounds before breaking. Hell, you can also make magazines from a 3D printer. They tried taking the files off the internet but you can still get the files from people. I think like 400k people downloaded a lot from the site before it was taken down so you can easily find a copy and be able to get the receiver. With all the gun owners in America and all the firearms in this country, firearms will never be banned and if they do enforce a ban of all firearms there would be a civil war in this country because at that point the government will be tyrannical.

One of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes that I think needs to be put in this thread. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:39 am 
Offline
Level: 52
HP: 1509 / 10781
1509 / 10781
MP: 5147 / 5147
5147 / 5147
EXP: 5127 / 5401
5127 / 5401
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:59 pm
Posts: 5127
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
XBL Gamertag: Ax8472
PSN ID: Ax8472
Steam ID: Ax8472
3DS code: 2681-1146-3380
Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone


LOL I know what you're saying, but you honestly could have worded that better in this debate haha.

So you're saying for defence and what not? It's the age old "fighting fire with fire" proverb but in the end it solves nothing. On a broader scale you can look at nuclear arms. I personally would rather no one had nuclear arms rather than everyone had them. Guess which scenario is gonna make it more likely for me to get nuked?

And it's not as if the police can't carry guns when needed either. Our police don't always carry them, but they have back up teams and certain squads that carry them.

If someone comes at me with a knife (which is easily obtainable, obviously) then can grab my own knife, or swing my guitar or golf club or whatever. It's not as if, because there are no guns, he's get the upper hand on me, the attacker and defender still have the same level of weapon at hand. However who can gaurentee they have a gun handy 100% of the time to defend themselves?

It's an old fashioned amendment for a modern society, and should be abolished. And your Franklin quote is just as redundant.

_________________
Image
"It's just annoying that games are going down the "extension of social media route". If I wanted to meet people I wouldn't sit at home playing games!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline
Level: 53 Social Justice Warrior
HP: 1828 / 11426
1828 / 11426
MP: 5455 / 5455
5455 / 5455
EXP: 5578 / 5705
5578 / 5705
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:18 pm
Posts: 5578
Steam ID: joecrow
Bokuten wrote:
You know more people die every year from automobile accidents than firearm related deaths but that isn't the point here. The point of this thread is for a debate and all I am seeing from the anti-gun people are just excuses to why people shouldn't have guns. Someone give me a detailed post about why we shouldn't have guns and then I'll add my two cents to that post.

I've offered you a debate and you ignored it, I presented empirical evidence (I'll acknowledge that it is a single case study so it does lack external validity) which quite clearly shows that a ban on firearms reduces gun related deaths, gun related suicides, and the occurrence of mass shootings and you've just labelled it as "excuses" when they are in fact legitimate reasons against the ownership of guns. I also asked you a direct question in response to one of your arguments and you've offered no sort of retort, and I made a point that it wasn't a rhetorical question and that I wanted a response. You haven't done that, which to me suggest you've not bothered to read or at the very least consider what I had to say.


Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone who is going to either kill someone else or kill a group of people. I can go back and forth with this if you like.

A Mother Jones investigation looked at 62 different mass shootings in the US over the past 30 years and found that "in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun" and that in other (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene saw them not only "fail to stop the shooter" but also end up "gravely wounded or killed."

Additionally, Dr. Stephen Hargarten, "a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin" believes that "armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the blood shed... given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances" (quotes are from the same article as linked above).

Bokuten wrote:
One of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes that I think needs to be put in this thread. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."


If you want to live like Benjamin Franklin, then I implore you to attach a key to a kite and fly it during a lightning storm.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:20 pm 
Offline
Level: 41 Obama Supporter
HP: 860 / 5376
860 / 5376
MP: 2567 / 2567
2567 / 2567
EXP: 2685 / 2806
2685 / 2806
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 11:42 pm
Posts: 2685
Location: New Jersey
Nintendo ID: Bokuten
Oh god that Mother Jones article reeks of liberal, but I will ignore that. One of the main things that article doesn't tell you is all the mass shootings that were stopped by civilians before they turned into mass shootings but he is going off the FBI's definition of a mass shooting. Dr. Stephen Hargarten quote seems like a bunch of crock. In the Empire State building shooting the people who were injured were injured by police bullets so who is he to say that civilians are going to cause more bloodshed? Here are some links I think will interest you. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Another thing I noticed in these mass shootings are the mental illness of the shooters which I stated in my first post. A majority of shootings the shooters showed signs of mental illness and it could have been prevented if someone took action and got help for those people. The main issue here is of mental illness and what should be done in the US and across the world is reform on mental illness because that is the major issue here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:18 pm 
Offline
Level: 52
HP: 1509 / 10781
1509 / 10781
MP: 5147 / 5147
5147 / 5147
EXP: 5127 / 5401
5127 / 5401
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:59 pm
Posts: 5127
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
XBL Gamertag: Ax8472
PSN ID: Ax8472
Steam ID: Ax8472
3DS code: 2681-1146-3380
Oh right, no actually that's a very good point.

Let's just get rid of all mental health then, and problem solved.

And there was me thinking this shit was gonna be more complicated.

_________________
Image
"It's just annoying that games are going down the "extension of social media route". If I wanted to meet people I wouldn't sit at home playing games!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:34 am 
Offline
Level: 73 Assmunch
HP: 13494 / 32129
13494 / 32129
MP: 14505 / 15340
14505 / 15340
EXP: 14727 / 15112
14727 / 15112
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 5:02 pm
Posts: 14727
Location: Concord, NC
XBL Gamertag: Atomic Deke
PSN ID: Dogfaced_God
Ax wrote:
Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone


LOL I know what you're saying, but you honestly could have worded that better in this debate haha.

So you're saying for defence and what not? It's the age old "fighting fire with fire" proverb but in the end it solves nothing. On a broader scale you can look at nuclear arms. I personally would rather no one had nuclear arms rather than everyone had them. Guess which scenario is gonna make it more likely for me to get nuked?

And it's not as if the police can't carry guns when needed either. Our police don't always carry them, but they have back up teams and certain squads that carry them.

If someone comes at me with a knife (which is easily obtainable, obviously) then can grab my own knife, or swing my guitar or golf club or whatever. It's not as if, because there are no guns, he's get the upper hand on me, the attacker and defender still have the same level of weapon at hand. However who can gaurentee they have a gun handy 100% of the time to defend themselves?

It's an old fashioned amendment for a modern society, and should be abolished. And your Franklin quote is just as redundant.


I'm sure you've heard the phrase "bringing a knife to a gun fight". There's a reason it's popular to the point of being cliched - being on equal ground with an attacker is stupid when you can outclass him instead. Two guys having knives doesn't guarantee parity between the two, either. Physical fitness, reaction speed, expertise - all of these play a part, not to mention the fact that, regardless of those factors, if you get into a knife fight, one or both of you is gonna bleed a lot, probably fatally so.

Guns can wreak catastrophic harm on a body under a lot of circumstances, but unless you're talking .50 cals or hand-cannons, chances are pretty good that a bullet will pass through the body in relatively tidy fashion with small holes, thus lessening the chances of lasting injury. Knives obviously make much bigger holes in people, and there's no chance of the wielder running out of ammo before he's done cutting you.

Sure, you might be able to take a knife-wielder out with a golf club or a bat before he can get to you. Me? I'd rather plug him full of lead before he can even get in range.

Joe wrote:
Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone who is going to either kill someone else or kill a group of people. I can go back and forth with this if you like.

A Mother Jones investigation looked at 62 different mass shootings in the US over the past 30 years and found that "in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun" and that in other (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene saw them not only "fail to stop the shooter" but also end up "gravely wounded or killed."

Additionally, Dr. Stephen Hargarten, "a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin" believes that "armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the blood shed... given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances" (quotes are from the same article as linked above).


The vast majority of these shootings take place in environments like schools, and those schools are largely located in states where guns can't legally be carried on campus by anyone but an officer of the law (there are only five states that say otherwise). That argument is more or less moot.

I'd also be curious to learn just what sort of training those armed civilians had. In North Carolina, there's a safety and training course which, aside from actually firing a gun and learning about the "appropriate use of deadly force", isn't terribly comprehensive on the "training" side. As for the requirement, you basically need to be of drinking age and a permanent non-felon resident of that state. In other words, any jackhole that's never spent time in lock-up and can pay the fees can get a concealed-carry permit, and I'd be willing to bet that not many states are much stricter. That shit needs to change, and the courses need to be taught by people that actually care about training and the safe usage of firearms, not some sheriff's deputy with his thumb up his ass and nothing better to do.

I don't dispute the fact that guns should be regulated a lot more strongly than they currently are. What I dispute is this idea that, if one person can't be responsible with a gun, no one should have them under any circumstance. Security and liberty don't play into my belief so much as the concept of "innocent 'til proven guilty", and I don't believe that a person should be punished by having his property taken from him like you're suggesting if he's done nothing wrong.

Sean also makes a strong point. Sure, automobiles are incredibly beneficial to society. Statistically speaking, they're also about the most dangerous thing mankind has ever created. Should we punish safe, responsible, and law-abiding drivers by taking their cars away because some fuckwit ran over an old lady because he was too busy texting? Hell no. Why should we punish safe, responsible, and law-abiding gun owners by taking their guns away because some fucked up kid shot his classmates because his parents couldn't be bothered with raising him properly?

_________________
Blokeh on Bookface wrote:
The Internet.

Where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.



Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:28 pm 
Offline
Level: 46 Alchemist
HP: 747 / 7478
747 / 7478
MP: 3570 / 3570
3570 / 3570
EXP: 3606 / 3828
3606 / 3828
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:54 pm
Posts: 3606
Location: Baltimore, MD
XBL Gamertag: PantsOfJustice
PSN ID: TalesOfPants
Hey neat. Automobiles save lives when used by public safety officials, just like guns.

Let's make it consistent and have it so only they can use them. There's no reasonable reason for the general public to be able to put themselves and others at risk (on a much larger scale than guns).

If you want to demonize things, do it consistently.

Alcohol's definitely got to go.

Also, people aren't all that responsible with their first amendment rights. Bullying and hate speech, right? Gotta put a stop to that. It's so tragic!

Anytime something is for "the greater good", regardless of how well intentioned it starts, turns to shit and gets abused (Right, NSA? <3)

I will always side with the individual over the collective in arguments like that.

Also, I'm sure this will be utterly shocking to foreigners, but you can go YEARS without ever seeing a gun being held by anyone other than an officer in the US. I'm sure many Americans would be shocked that there's a surprisingly short supply of wizards in the UK. Then again, that's the power of media and selective sensationalized news. Clearly I should live my life in fear, and attempt to control others rather than enjoying my life.

>inb4mylifeendswithgunfire Anyone can die from anything at any time. Deal with it, I don't need a Nanny.

_________________
『ようこそ!ワタシの音楽工場へへへへへへへへへへへへへへ』
.
.
.
『絶対逃ガサナイカラ』


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:44 pm 
Offline
Level: 39 Squire
HP: 280 / 4676
280 / 4676
MP: 2232 / 2232
2232 / 2232
EXP: 2303 / 2461
2303 / 2461
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:31 pm
Posts: 2303
the ability to acquire a gun should be more difficult. background and mental health check. but never should guns be taken away. they are a reality. and whether law abiding citizens can get them or not criminals will always find a way. the best argument I've seen for it is pretty simple. Would you put a sign on your house saying there are no guns on the property?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:12 pm 
Offline
Level: 78 Chump
HP: 21383 / 40346
21383 / 40346
MP: 14562 / 19263
14562 / 19263
EXP: 18621 / 18735
18621 / 18735
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 11:51 pm
Posts: 18621
Location: Bradford, UK
XBL Gamertag: Blokeh
PSN ID: Blokeh
Steam ID: Blokeh
Wii system code: 2445-8086-3386-0718
I agreed with everything you said, til the last part, as it implies that "no guns = easy pickings".

I would put up a sign like that, because my house is filled with sharp bladed weaponry and is home to a goth ninja.

_________________
Image

╔══════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong black woman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚══════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gun Debate
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:57 pm 
Offline
Level: 39 Squire
HP: 280 / 4676
280 / 4676
MP: 2232 / 2232
2232 / 2232
EXP: 2303 / 2461
2303 / 2461
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:31 pm
Posts: 2303
no guns does equal easy pickings if they have guns. doesn't matter how many swords/knives you have, if a gun is pointed at you and you're holding a sword you're still screwed. now if you somehow manage to surprise the person, then yes, you're well protected. That's hardly a guarantee though.

i find it hilarious how much debate there is on this topic and how adamant people are about it yet they could give a crap about the entire reason we fought for independence in the first place. No taxation without representation. When money became free speech we all lost our representation and no amount of guns will ever get it back.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group