News that makes you say WTF! (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
First of all, I think it's pretty clear that gun ownership is not the reason for violence, and that there are quite different and often complicated social problems responsible for it, most notably poverty. Now interestingly enough those who advocate loose gun regulations and the right to bear arms openly are very often the same people who believe that the poor are mostly responsible for their own fate and need to help themselves instead of realising that things aren't quite that easy and ending or reducing poverty is very much dependant on the economic and social systems and circumstances in place. But anyways, that's a completely different topic.
Back to gun legislation, it's just as ridiculous to blame guns for violence as it is to suggest more guns as a solution for the problem. It might have positive effects for individuals, but is catastrophic on a national level. And while I already emphasised that banning guns would certainly not solve the causes for violence and henceforth neither violence, easier access to guns means that killing someone is still a whole lot easier than it would be without. Add to that the at times in my opinion at times rather questionable stand-your-ground laws, where deadly force is often used in situations and response to crimes where there is no real need for it, even though the killed was certainly not an innocent person (the Zimmerman case for instance).
- - - Updated - - -
Instead of make a longwinded post, this guy says rational potent counter points in way more funnier way
@Salvo and all the other aussies, this guy is lolsy hehe...
And he even actually mentions some great arguments
Gotta spread tho
Back to gun legislation, it's just as ridiculous to blame guns for violence as it is to suggest more guns as a solution for the problem. It might have positive effects for individuals, but is catastrophic on a national level. And while I already emphasised that banning guns would certainly not solve the causes for violence and henceforth neither violence, easier access to guns means that killing someone is still a whole lot easier than it would be without. Add to that the at times in my opinion at times rather questionable stand-your-ground laws, where deadly force is often used in situations and response to crimes where there is no real need for it, even though the killed was certainly not an innocent person (the Zimmerman case for instance).
- - - Updated - - -
Instead of make a longwinded post, this guy says rational potent counter points in way more funnier way
@Salvo and all the other aussies, this guy is lolsy hehe...
And he even actually mentions some great arguments
Gotta spread tho
Well first of all, I don't think video games and rap music have anything to do with inciting violence. People can tell the difference between reality and fiction. Why aren't action movies like Die Hard also part of this theory of yours in that case? Should we do away with them also?
And then, why should conservatives or liberals do something about that, as if there is anything to be done? Press/entertainment is one of the most important venues where freedom of speech should be represented and banning/regulating stuff like that would lead down a very slippery slope imo.
And then, why should conservatives or liberals do something about that, as if there is anything to be done? Press/entertainment is one of the most important venues where freedom of speech should be represented and banning/regulating stuff like that would lead down a very slippery slope imo.
We didn't have any of that in 2000 B.C. Now if you compare that society to the one we have today, the latter is vastly less violent. People always think that we are becoming more violent, more antisocial and less communicative, while all tangible data point to the exact opposite.
Society is consistently getting better, not worse.
Society is consistently getting better, not worse.
No, there is a reason why lawyers plead insanity for their clients...because they can't tell the difference between fiction & reality.
And if you read my posts (all of them) I included Hollywood as part of the problem from the liberal point of view. Dems in Hollywood scream for gun control yet make movies like Die Hard. I'm not saying video games cause it, or rap music causes it, but combining them all among other social factors you might see different results.
Either you aren't reading my posts or selectively picking your topics to argue. I never said limit free speech I simply called out the hypocrites in Hollywood. They are as clear as day, sorta like Al Gore on climate change but having a 15 bedroom mansion and 4 SUV's parked in his garage.
Guns aren't the problem, I'd say its a combination of psychological with social factors.
And if you read my posts (all of them) I included Hollywood as part of the problem from the liberal point of view. Dems in Hollywood scream for gun control yet make movies like Die Hard. I'm not saying video games cause it, or rap music causes it, but combining them all among other social factors you might see different results.
Either you aren't reading my posts or selectively picking your topics to argue. I never said limit free speech I simply called out the hypocrites in Hollywood. They are as clear as day, sorta like Al Gore on climate change but having a 15 bedroom mansion and 4 SUV's parked in his garage.
Guns aren't the problem, I'd say its a combination of psychological with social factors.
Yes. But they cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality precisely because they have mental issues. Video games and rap music are not the reason people aren't able to tell the difference anymore. Schizophrenia (for example) is.
As for guns: they do not incite violence, but surely it is far more difficult to kill someone if you don't have easy access to a gun. Besides, every year we hear about some poor mother getting shot by her own 4 year old child with her own Walmart bought handgun.
I understand that people like to have guns when they live in remote areas and want to defend themselves against animals and strangers who could easily loot their houses and get away with it. A gun in Alaska makes sense. In Manhattan? Not so much.
As for guns: they do not incite violence, but surely it is far more difficult to kill someone if you don't have easy access to a gun. Besides, every year we hear about some poor mother getting shot by her own 4 year old child with her own Walmart bought handgun.
I understand that people like to have guns when they live in remote areas and want to defend themselves against animals and strangers who could easily loot their houses and get away with it. A gun in Alaska makes sense. In Manhattan? Not so much.
Exactly. Thank you 
First sentence of your last paragraph I disagree with. If you look at many serial killers of the past they used weapons that weren't guns. If people wish to go on a killing spree they will find the tools they need for it, guns or not.
Banning guns will only create a black market for them making things illegal and more people are willing to kill as a result of getting caught.
First sentence of your last paragraph I disagree with. If you look at many serial killers of the past they used weapons that weren't guns. If people wish to go on a killing spree they will find the tools they need for it, guns or not.
Banning guns will only create a black market for them making things illegal and more people are willing to kill as a result of getting caught.
Exactly. Thank you
First sentence of your last paragraph I disagree with. If you look at many serial killers of the past they used weapons that weren't guns. If people wish to go on a killing spree they will find the tools they need for it, guns or not.
Banning guns will only create a black market for them making things illegal and more people are willing to kill as a result of getting caught.
First sentence of your last paragraph I disagree with. If you look at many serial killers of the past they used weapons that weren't guns. If people wish to go on a killing spree they will find the tools they need for it, guns or not.
Banning guns will only create a black market for them making things illegal and more people are willing to kill as a result of getting caught.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Note in particular the enormous difference between Europe and the USA.
You have a right to defend yourself, but not with a gun. The odds of you killing an innocent person or yourself are higher than killing the perpetrator. Never mind the question if being mugged justifies killing another person.
We don't think everyone should have easy access to biochemical weapons, do we?
I'm telling you this:
EVERY STATISTIC on the subject is telling you that gun ownership for a lot of people is a very very bad idea. It's plain stupid.
"Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year"
And what exactly are you going to say about Hong Kong then? Come on, man. Just admit it. Gun ownership for a lot of people is insane. It's stupid. It's not even considered in Europe because it is common knowledge that it is a bad idea. Only hundreds of years of indoctrination could make a man this blind.
And what exactly are you going to say about Hong Kong then? Come on, man. Just admit it. Gun ownership for a lot of people is insane. It's stupid. It's not even considered in Europe because it is common knowledge that it is a bad idea. Only hundreds of years of indoctrination could make a man this blind.
If someone decides to try and mug me and I have a gun, either they die or get shot and live, either way they are getting shot. Simply as that.
The bolded: Find me a source otherwise not credible.
Likewise, if someone tries to mug me and I don't have a weapon and I fight back, if I manage to get them down I won't stop hitting until they either stop moving or someone pulls me off, I could care less if they die or not, its not my problem they simply picked the wrong guy.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree, which is what Enron was saying. Some people shouldn't have a gun. I'm not for banning guns, however, I am completely OK with regulations being harder to get a gun.
The bolded: Find me a source otherwise not credible.
Likewise, if someone tries to mug me and I don't have a weapon and I fight back, if I manage to get them down I won't stop hitting until they either stop moving or someone pulls me off, I could care less if they die or not, its not my problem they simply picked the wrong guy.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree, which is what Enron was saying. Some people shouldn't have a gun. I'm not for banning guns, however, I am completely OK with regulations being harder to get a gun.
Just a while ago I heard on TV how there was study where they wanted to see why are there so many murders in the US, much more compared to Canada, while both countries are 'obsessed' with guns. End result said it was the media difference. Majority of news in the US is about killings and stuff, compared to Canada, which obviously afflicts behavior.
Impossible. TV obviously doesn't effect people, according to some.
- - - Updated - - -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rate
Gun murders per 100,000 people:
1. New Orleans...........................19.0
2. Memphis...................................9.4
3. Detroit.......................................8.6
4. Birmingham..............................8.4
5. St. Louis...................................8.1
6. Baltimore..................................7.7
7. Jacksonville..............................7.4
8. Kansas City..............................6.8
9. Philadelphia..............................6.2
----------
Overall number of gun murders:
1. Los Angeles.......................1,141
2. Chicago..............................1,139
3. New York.............................1,101
4. Philadelphia...........................729
5. Houston..................................701
6. Detroit.....................................686
7. Miami.......................................594
8. Dallas......................................469
9. Washington.............................440
10. San Francisco......................439
-----------------
What do people think these cities have in common?
- - - Updated - - -
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rate
Gun murders per 100,000 people:
1. New Orleans...........................19.0
2. Memphis...................................9.4
3. Detroit.......................................8.6
4. Birmingham..............................8.4
5. St. Louis...................................8.1
6. Baltimore..................................7.7
7. Jacksonville..............................7.4
8. Kansas City..............................6.8
9. Philadelphia..............................6.2
----------
Overall number of gun murders:
1. Los Angeles.......................1,141
2. Chicago..............................1,139
3. New York.............................1,101
4. Philadelphia...........................729
5. Houston..................................701
6. Detroit.....................................686
7. Miami.......................................594
8. Dallas......................................469
9. Washington.............................440
10. San Francisco......................439
-----------------
What do people think these cities have in common?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Look at DC...guns are banned in DC and yet they have as many murders as other states with populations in the millions despite having a population in the 600k area.
Theoretically, if Guns are banned, shouldn't the gun murder rate drop?
Look at DC...guns are banned in DC and yet they have as many murders as other states with populations in the millions despite having a population in the 600k area.
Theoretically, if Guns are banned, shouldn't the gun murder rate drop?
That argument doesn't strike me as very convincing though.
Terrorist organizations have proven they can kill plenty of people using conventional bombs & guns too. That doesn't mean that we should give 'em nuclear bombs.
I know I'm strawmanning here, but the bottomline is that even if the causes for violence are different, easier access to guns in general accentuates the problem and leads to more severe outcomes of situations where violence occurs.
Terrorist organizations have proven they can kill plenty of people using conventional bombs & guns too. That doesn't mean that we should give 'em nuclear bombs.
I know I'm strawmanning here, but the bottomline is that even if the causes for violence are different, easier access to guns in general accentuates the problem and leads to more severe outcomes of situations where violence occurs.