Clock Crew

4th week of 2013, and already 6 school shootings in America

this is gonna be a good year

its because we have so much freedom :salute:

Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text?
Is it the fledgling status of the country that makes them cling to a security of sorts to make it feel more robust as a nation or am I missing something?
My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.

My point is / TLDR :

The second amendment was with most certain probability not intended for a time when the nation was secure but most of all when guns could shoot multiple times in succession. At the very least not fully automatic rifles.

All data shows that the more guns there are the more deaths (from what I know of). Why are they blaming everything but the things that actually have a somewhat proven correlation like media and/or guncontrol?

Well, end of walltext.

Video games movies music bullying

(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.minus.com%2FiH8aOpXstddxg.gif&hash=4e75b96a1957f58c77101326a5c107f6294af448)

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text... My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.

We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268At the very least not fully automatic rifles.

Full auto weapons are not legal unless they were manufactured and specially registered before 1986.

The guns being scrutinized currently in the USA are semi-auto weapons.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937268Could someone whom is American explain to one whom is not, why do they revere the constitution as some holy text?
Is it the fledgling status of the country that makes them cling to a security of sorts to make it feel more robust as a nation or am I missing something?
My country has laws older than 800 years but we don't mind at all if they'd have to be updated or modernized. We do it quite often as to not stagnate.

My point is / TLDR :

The second amendment was with most certain probability not intended for a time when the nation was secure but most of all when guns could shoot multiple times in succession. At the very least not fully automatic rifles.

All data shows that the more guns there are the more deaths (from what I know of). Why are they blaming everything but the things that actually have a somewhat proven correlation like media and/or guncontrol?

Well, end of walltext.

ill explain
as a canadian

first of all u need to stop misusing the word "whom"

lastly and more importantly your TLDR version is longer than your original thought and that makes me mad

I'm neutral on the whole arms thing. In the military, we have some guys who cry and cry about their second amendment rights. What I think would be funny, would be if they added a new amendment, similar to when they got rid of prohibition. Not because I care about the guns, but all the moaning would be glorious.

Many, if not most, of the people who commit violent crimes using guns have purchased the guns illegally.  Also, instead of naming a lack of gun control as the source, how about focusing on the gang violence and drug trafficking?

For the people who just used guns to shoot up elementary schools and all that, I'm sure if they were that motivated for their fucked up irrational cause they would have robbed some queer-rights private of his sidearm just so they could follow through.

Actually, on second thought this country is fucked up.  But at least soccer is a second tier sport here.

Quote from: Buttplug;1937282We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?

Quote from: MiracleFruitClock;1937288ill explain
as a canadian

first of all u need to stop misusing the word "whom"

lastly and more importantly your TLDR version is longer than your original thought and that makes me mad

Never! Also I know. The TLDR was suppouse to be only those two lines but I forgot to move the rest of the text above it. Oh well. <3

Quote from: Buttplug;1937282We don't. It's constantly tested in the judicial system.

The judicial system mostly tests for how things hold up against the constitution. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, the only thing under debate is how to interpret it and when it's appropriate to change it.

But as far as the ballyhoo over the second amendment, it has nothing to do with strict adherence to the constitution, really. People just like their guns and are glad they have something important to hide behind. If people gave half the shit about the constitution that they pretended to when we discuss the second amendment, we wouldn't have the worst prison system in the first world, because somebody would have brought up the eighth sometime before we started putting people in solitary confinement for 40 years.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937330But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?

Yes. The 18th was revoked by the 21st.
They're amendments. Amendments are by definition changes to an existing document.

Well at least the guns are helping against overpopulation.

Quote from: Slurpee;1937333Yes. The 18th was revoked by the 21st.
They're amendments. Amendments are by definition changes to an existing document.

Oh sweet, do you ever thing they'd be able to edit the second amendment?

Dutch firearm enthousiast here.

We had a mall shooting last year.

The laws here were very strict (Licensing, background checks, etc. etc. no automatics) and are only getting stricter (read : eligible to purchase  a semi auto larger calibre only after 3 years of membership combined with psych tests)
The problem lies in enforcing said laws. (the fact that the psycho kid who shot up the mall had access to firearms was a big police fuckup)

U.S. should probably be worried about licensing etc. not so much about banning high capacity magazines.

I fall somewhere in the middle, largely because I compare gun ownership to violent video game playing. People tell me violent video games make me violent and make me and others more likely to commit a murder of some kind. I think this is bullshit. I'm sure there are plenty of gun owners who feel the same. The go hunting or they shoot their guns at a range and they don't see the harm in having a little fun with them.

Of course, there's a difference here. I think gun owners need to acknowledge that firearms ACTUALLY kill people, their intended use is to kill and that you don't have a God-given right to own things that can kill people en masse. They whine about not being able to own a fully automatic weapon. Well guess what, you can't own a nuclear bomb either. Because that would be fucking stupid. So where do we draw the line? Well I think we should draw the line a little sooner than we do right now, because people are dying and the system is currently not so good.

Quote from: SpongeClock SquarePants;1937344Dutch firearm enthousiast here.

We had a mall shooting last year.

The laws here were very strict (Licensing, background checks, etc. etc. no automatics) and are only getting stricter (read : eligible to purchase  a semi auto larger calibre only after 3 years of membership combined with psych tests)
The problem lies in enforcing said laws. (the fact that the psycho kid who shot up the mall had access to firearms was a big police fuckup)

U.S. should probably be worried about licensing etc. not so much about banning high capacity magazines.

Problem is I'm pretty sure Newtown guy's guns weren't his own, they were his mom's. How are you supposed to stop that kind of contingency?

Here's my thought on it. I own a black powder rifle, a black powder revolver, and a Remington .22 hunting rifle. The only reason I had to get a license was for the Remington .22. The other two guns I could own as long as I was 18 years old. All of these guns could still probably kill you, and if they didn't would do some permanent damage somewhere on your body. I've successfully hunted with all of these guns. And based on an educated guess, I think you could easily kill yourself with any of these guns if you wanted to or were careless enough.

I also agree with the point that we're not allowed to own nuclear weapons, and the way the constitution is worded makes it pretty clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What does "well regulated" mean? I believe it means arming people appropriately with the appropriate kind of weaponry. This also means that I believe a select few private citizens should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon. For an example, you would not trust a class D license driver to drive an 18 wheel truck. That being said the people who are getting CDL licenses are often people who have very specific needs for that kind of license. Regulation on a CDL license is much more strict, and the penalties are much higher. I think gun ownership should be looked at in the same way. A good example of a need for that kind of gun would be security for a private defense company, armored trucks that are handling massive amounts of valuables, (Gold bullion, weapons, large bills, precious gemstones etc etc) or some other kind of private security. The cost of being able to own this kind of gun should be reflective of the responsibility required to own such a weapon. In other words your grandmother shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.

(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F268%2F252%2F8a6.gif&hash=aee2a1987d7dbd05d42ebee3d2402c8853bf4673)

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937351Here's my thought on it. I own a black powder rifle, a black powder revolver, and a Remington .22 hunting rifle. The only reason I had to get a license was for the Remington .22. The other two guns I could own as long as I was 18 years old. All of these guns could still probably kill you, and if they didn't would do some permanent damage somewhere on your body. I've successfully hunted with all of these guns. And based on an educated guess, I think you could easily kill yourself with any of these guns if you wanted to or were careless enough.

I also agree with the point that we're not allowed to own nuclear weapons, and the way the constitution is worded makes it pretty clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What does "well regulated" mean? I believe it means arming people appropriately with the appropriate kind of weaponry. This also means that I believe a select few private citizens should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon. For an example, you would not trust a class D license driver to drive an 18 wheel truck. That being said the people who are getting CDL licenses are often people who have very specific needs for that kind of license. Regulation on a CDL license is much more strict, and the penalties are much higher. I think gun ownership should be looked at in the same way. A good example of a need for that kind of gun would be security for a private defense company, armored trucks that are handling massive amounts of valuables, (Gold bullion, weapons, large bills, precious gemstones etc etc) or some other kind of private security. The cost of being able to own this kind of gun should be reflective of the responsibility required to own such a weapon. In other words your grandmother shouldn't be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.

I agree to a point, I still fail to see the use of letting civilians carry arms.

How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937365How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?

We dont need no civil warr :rockin:

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937365How about the fact that if you tried to take guns from Americans a civil war would break out. Is that good enough for you?

I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

[U2]qJG9EZF2wJg[/U2]

Quote from: FamineClock;1937342Oh sweet, do you ever thing they'd be able to edit the second amendment?

Realistically? Not for at least a couple decades, if ever.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a two-thirds majority by the houses of congress, both of which give disproportionate representation to the smaller, more rural states, which would never modify or revoke the second amendment with a sitting Democratic president anywhere left of Reagan. Even if they wanted to, it'd be a flatly moronic political move. After that, proposed amendments have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states of the union, a process which can take upward of two hundred years. The mentality of the entire culture would have to shift to even put it on the table, and even so would be quite a feat. We have, as I've mentioned, a fondness for our own legacy, which makes it difficult to buck tradition, and Americans love their guns.

The only progress to be made in the short term is going to be from lefties stretching the interpretation of the spirit of the amendment, and hoping the Supreme Court doesn't strike them down.
 

Quote from: FamineClock;1937363I agree to a point, I still fail to see the use of letting civilians carry arms.

When the United States was formed, we had a division of power between the individual states and the federal government. Power was given to the states to arm their citizens into militias, which were to be under command of the President during wartime. There was a fear that without a standing civilian army in peacetime there would be a federal takeover of the military, making succession from the government impossible- the states wished to maintain a greater deal of independence from the federal government than they currently have. The federal government began forming a larger centralized military after a failure to suppress the Shay rebellion, and the second amendment was adopted to assure the states that the government wouldn't dissolve their militias (one of the first things the Brits tried to do in the early stages of the American Revolution was disarm the colonies to prevent armed insurrection against the crown.) The United States was a crazy experiment and everybody was afraid of fucking up and accidentally creating a tin pot dictatorship. We wanted assurance that if we couldn't change our government, we'd be able to overthrow it and have another go. Armed insurrection against the federal government no longer being what it once was, the second amendment's looser ancillary interpretation of maintaining civilian firearms as an extension of the natural right to individual self-defense is generally what's under discussion in modern times.

Slurpee just said what I was about to; the point of the second amendment isn't about self defense or malitias. It's about making sure that the American people COULD OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT if it got corrupt.

Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson to give some context:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."


Or more recently,  Abraham Lincoln said:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."


How are we supposed to violently overthrow the government if we don't have our guns??

For those wondering btw, we're overthrowing the government next week, on sunday. Bring your assault rifles and a bagged lunch.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

I think that in theory if shit went downhill that people could give the government a run for it's money. People probably wouldn't win the fight, but they would probably gain international sympathy because let's face it there's always somebody in an authority figure who takes enforcement way overboard. I think that beyond guns people would start doing other things like destroying infrastructure, hacking computers, creating homemade bombs out of cheap household materials, and all kinds of other fucked up things. The fact is there are a lot of really crazy people who are kept in line by the fact that they can sleep with their rifles.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937330But would you guys ever revoke an amendment?

Yes, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937397I think that in theory if shit went downhill that people could give the government a run for it's money. People probably wouldn't win the fight, but they would probably gain international sympathy because let's face it there's always somebody in an authority figure who takes enforcement way overboard. I think that beyond guns people would start doing other things like destroying infrastructure, hacking computers, creating homemade bombs out of cheap household materials, and all kinds of other fucked up things. The fact is there are a lot of really crazy people who are kept in line by the fact that they can sleep with their rifles.

I'd say thats a textbook case of treating a symptom and not a cause. I'd rather my crazy people be getting psychiatric help not deadly pacifiers.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937350Problem is I'm pretty sure Newtown guy's guns weren't his own, they were his mom's. How are you supposed to stop that kind of contingency?

you don't

Five, actually. Sandy Brook was in December, the 10th school shooting in the US last year.
 
If you want to address the murder rate in the country you tackle institutional racism and the toxic culture it's created. Without the violence created by crippling poverty the US suddenly has a murder rate like that in Western Europe. You need financial infrastructure in these neighborhoods so people can feel like they have a decent alternative to crime and violence.
 
If it's just the white children you're concerned about and you want to address school shootings specifically you go after bullying. Most of these shootings are involving students who've just snapped. It's hardly surprising that occasionally someone loses their shit and kills the people they perceive as their tormentors. School, for many kids, is nothing short of torture. Maybe taking that a bit more seriously is a little more worthwhile than freaking out about guns. Personally, it's the suicide rate that makes me want to do something about that. Worrying about school shootings is like worrying about getting hit by lightning.
 

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381I hope people don't have so much ignorance and anger in their hearts that they see these dangerous weapons being taken from them and decide to go kill people. Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?
They wouldn't.

It would never, ever get that far. Any politician trying to enforce a ban on guns would most likely be assassinated. They could maybe get away with it in some Northern states, but try that shit south of the Mason-Dixon and we're gonna have some dead bodies on our hands.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937351"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson has only one comma. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's a very important comma. The portion before the comma is the reasoning for the conclusion after the comma. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, yes? Well, then, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but a right of the people. We may say that "well yes, their intention was to keep a well regulated militia", but they clearly state that the result of their intention is that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because otherwise, who's to say that the militia is well-regulated? You can have a corrupt militia leader just as readily as you can have a tin-pot dictator. But if the people are well armed, you don't have to worry about who runs the militia, because if he's a dick you can just shoot him.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937381Does anyone who owns guns seriously think an armed rebellion would be able to take on the United States Armed Forces?

A lot of the people in the Army are the kind of people who would be willing to revolt because their guns got taken away. The US military is full of ignorant people.

lol cool

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937437Solid point about the comma

You're right about that, and the result is that anyone can kill just about anyone. The question is how many people can you kill before somebody stops you from ever killing again, and could you survive it? Whether it's in the setting of a movie theater, or on a battlefield that's the big question and a lot of people really don't like the answer.

Quote from: Slurpee;1937383Realistically? Not for at least a couple decades, if ever.

Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a two-thirds majority by the houses of congress, both of which give disproportionate representation to the smaller, more rural states, which would never modify or revoke the second amendment with a sitting Democratic president anywhere left of Reagan. Even if they wanted to, it'd be a flatly moronic political move. After that, proposed amendments have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states of the union, a process which can take upward of two hundred years. The mentality of the entire culture would have to shift to even put it on the table, and even so would be quite a feat. We have, as I've mentioned, a fondness for our own legacy, which makes it difficult to buck tradition, and Americans love their guns.

The only progress to be made in the short term is going to be from lefties stretching the interpretation of the spirit of the amendment, and hoping the Supreme Court doesn't strike them down.
 

When the United States was formed, we had a division of power between the individual states and the federal government. Power was given to the states to arm their citizens into militias, which were to be under command of the President during wartime. There was a fear that without a standing civilian army in peacetime there would be a federal takeover of the military, making succession from the government impossible- the states wished to maintain a greater deal of independence from the federal government than they currently have. The federal government began forming a larger centralized military after a failure to suppress the Shay rebellion, and the second amendment was adopted to assure the states that the government wouldn't dissolve their militias (one of the first things the Brits tried to do in the early stages of the American Revolution was disarm the colonies to prevent armed insurrection against the crown.) The United States was a crazy experiment and everybody was afraid of fucking up and accidentally creating a tin pot dictatorship. We wanted assurance that if we couldn't change our government, we'd be able to overthrow it and have another go. Armed insurrection against the federal government no longer being what it once was, the second amendment's looser ancillary interpretation of maintaining civilian firearms as an extension of the natural right to individual self-defense is generally what's under discussion in modern times.

Oh as I said before, I do understand WHY the second amendment was useful when it was proposed. But nowdays it seems to be a relic of the past, just like on Ireland (or was it scotland?) you're allowed to shot Englishmen with a bow on Sundays.

I understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.


Thank you for the very evolved answer by the way, much love :D

Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?

also shooting guns is hella fun

Quote from: SpongeClock SquarePants;1937509also shooting guns is hella fun

yeah

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937441You're right about that, and the result is that anyone can kill just about anyone. The question is how many people can you kill before somebody stops you from ever killing again, and could you survive it? Whether it's in the setting of a movie theater, or on a battlefield that's the big question and a lot of people really don't like the answer.

Certainly fewer with an armed populace.

Quote from: Thor;1937487Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?

Where's the adjusted odds ratio for being poor and black? Because I'm pretty sure that creams all the others to the extent that it makes them more or less irrelevant.

Quote from: whothefuckisfamineclockI understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.

See my previous comment on murder rates in the US. It's not guns, it's poverty and racism.

Quote from: Thor;1937487Owning a gun makes you almost 3 times more likely to be a gun homicide victim

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

And people buy self defense guns so they WON'T get shot. Isn't that ironic?

Where's the adjusted odds ratio for being poor and black? Because I'm pretty sure that creams all the others to the extent that it makes them more or less irrelevant.

Quote from: whothefuckisfamineclockI understand the mentality of the more rural US citizens, but as I said before, apart from the now problems of having spread so many guns around: I fail to see how arming civilians is ever a good idea. Even if there was an uprising against a sitting president, a mob with guns are no more an army than a heap of building-material is a house. Without military training civilians with guns couldn't even put a dent on the US military.

See my previous comment on murder rates in the US. It's not guns, it's poverty and racism.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937512See my previous comment on murder rates in the US. It's not guns, it's poverty and racism.

A lot of countries have poverty and racism, yet their murderates are lower. I'm not saying guns are the sole perpetrator, the classic argument "Well if he didn't kill them with guns he'd kill them with a cheese-grater". It's just that it's hard to kill a cinema or school class with a knife.

I still find no purpose of arming civilians. Especially not with automatic rifles.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937515I still find no purpose of arming civilians. Especially not with automatic rifles.

That's because you've never owned one, you've never been raised with one, and you wouldn't know what to do with a gun. In other words you don't have any credibility when it comes to guns beyond what you've learned from the telly. The fact is there are some people in this world who want guns, have guns, and use them for their own private purposes. It's a constitutional mandate that you cannot take guns away from the American people.

And yes other countries have poverty, but nowhere else in the world is the gap so wide in a country where common citizens are allowed to own guns. What a lot of people don't realize is that the most common cases of gun violence are caused by illegal guns and stolen guns. To think that you can just stuff Pandora back into the box without any problems is silly.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937516To think that you can just stuff Pandora back into the box without any problems is silly.

Pandora wasn't in Pandora's box, all the ills of mankind were.

Stuffing Pandora into her own box would be confusing and psychotic, and probably let elpis out.

Okay I'll bite: didn't the U.K. stuff Pandora into her box in 1997 and don't they have the lowest rates of firearm homicide in the world outside of Hong Kong and Singapore?

Edit: also,

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937516That's because you've never owned one, you've never been raised with one, and you wouldn't know what to do with a gun. In other words you don't have any credibility when it comes to guns beyond what you've learned from the telly.

this is a weak assed explanation. My grampa taught me how to fire a .22 when I was like ten, and I don't understand the purpose of private citizens owning firearms, either, besides them being totally badical and people wanting to own them and them being a constitutional right, none of which are actual reasons.

From an ecological perspective there is still a salient point to be made for allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns for recreational purposes to help reduce the population of animals which we've removed their natural predators. AR-15's and handguns, however, are simply not practical for hunting.

In areas with less guns, there are generally the same number of assaults and robberies, but less of them use guns. Since assaults and robberies that involve guns are much more likely to result in a death, that means that means that countries with more guns have more fatalities than injuries in assaults.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937538From an ecological perspective there is still a salient point to be made for allowing people to own hunting rifles and shotguns for recreational purposes to help reduce the population of animals which we've removed their natural predators. AR-15's and handguns, however, are simply not practical for hunting.

I never understood why we don't let animal populations just naturalize themselves. If deers overbreed and eat up all the food, resulting in mass death of deers, wouldn't that solve the deer overpopulation problem? They would adapt in a few generations to be less I'm a edgy teen, or the wolf population could rebound.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937512Where's the adjusted odds ratio for being poor and black? Because I'm pretty sure that creams all the others to the extent that it makes them more or less irrelevant.

Well, if you actually looked at my link...
Being poor makes you about 4.4 times as likely to get shot. Being black makes you something like 4 times as likely to get shot. That's a lot, but it doesn't just make the FACT that owning a gun at all makes you statically more likely to get shot to death. Especially when you consider that the majority of gun owners in America are, in fact, white people. This is a statistic that I pulled out of my ass.

Quote from: Thor;1937548I never understood why we don't let animal populations just naturalize themselves. If deers overbreed and eat up all the food, resulting in mass death of deers, wouldn't that solve the deer overpopulation problem? They would adapt in a few generations to be less I'm a edgy teen, or the wolf population could rebound.

You have to think about it on an ecosystem scale. If the deer, natural generalists, deplete their food resource, that's only going to negatively effect every other animal that also uses that resource. It could threaten vulnerable species in the long run. Plus, with the stigma in place, their slow population growth, their need for wide expanses in a nation already lousy with land fragmentation, and the NIMBY ignorance of the average American, it would take a long time for wolves to become as populous as they were on our arrival. We have to take up the responsibility of displacing them and becoming the deer's new main predator.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937516That's because you've never owned one, you've never been raised with one, and you wouldn't know what to do with a gun. In other words you don't have any credibility when it comes to guns beyond what you've learned from the telly. The fact is there are some people in this world who want guns, have guns, and use them for their own private purposes. It's a constitutional mandate that you cannot take guns away from the American people.

And yes other countries have poverty, but nowhere else in the world is the gap so wide in a country where common citizens are allowed to own guns. What a lot of people don't realize is that the most common cases of gun violence are caused by illegal guns and stolen guns. To think that you can just stuff Pandora back into the box without any problems is silly.

That's still not an argument for guns. You just told me what people whom already own them think and why they're allowed to do so. You could take away "Guns" and add in "Racial Segregation", just because people expect it, were brought up with it and it's written in some law text does not make it a good idea.

Quote from: Thor;1937548I never understood why we don't let animal populations just naturalize themselves. If deers overbreed and eat up all the food, resulting in mass death of deers, wouldn't that solve the deer overpopulation problem? They would adapt in a few generations to be less I'm a edgy teen, or the wolf population could rebound.

Have you ever been around a place where deer overpopulate? Car accidents go way up, plant vegitation goes down, and nature just goes to shit. As for the wolves they're being bred out by coyotes. You want a bunch of coyotes running around?

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937600Have you ever been around a place where deer overpopulate? Car accidents go way up, plant vegitation goes down, and nature just goes to shit. As for the wolves they're being bred out by coyotes. You want a bunch of coyotes running around?

I'm from the north of Europa, yes we have people whom get hunting certifications and hold moose populations down and I'd bet we have much more caraccidents due to wildlife due to our thick pineforests.

Also that's a very far fetched arguement, how many automatic rifles, handsguns etc. do you seriously think people use to hunt?
As I said before, there still is no arguement for arming civilians with automatic rifles or guns. Hunting wildlife can be done with regulations.

My point is that sure you can never truly stop terrorism or folks whom are determined to murder a lot of people. But people bellow the age of 24 would very rarely be able to build up a network of contacts to get the neccary tools, whilst in the US it's not hard for a frustrated and pubertal young man/woman to get their hands on the right tools to murder a lot of people very fast.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937515A lot of countries have poverty and racism, yet their murderates are lower. I'm not saying guns are the sole perpetrator, the classic argument "Well if he didn't kill them with guns he'd kill them with a cheese-grater". It's just that it's hard to kill a cinema or school class with a knife.

I still find no purpose of arming civilians. Especially not with automatic rifles.

A lot of countries do not have the kind of gang-infested crime-ridden ghettos that we do, and we have them because of the extreme poverty resulting from institutional racism.
 
This isn't about automatic rifles, they're highly regulated in the US. This is about semi-automatic firearms. The difference being that automatic firearms are able to fire continuously with a single squeeze of the trigger, whereas semi-automatic firearms simply reload themselves, allowing for more rapid single-firing. Not only is this a feature found on most pistols you'll see, but it's incredibly useful for, say, shooting at pests, or for certain kinds of hunting, or self-defense. If you're in grizzly country and one of them decides it wants a piece of you you're not going to want to sit there fucking around with a bolt action or reloading a revolver. If your first shot misses and you have to sit there reloading on your own you may well not get a second shot. When people talk about "assault weapons" they're just talking about semi-automatic rifles with some of the cosmetic features of automatic weapons. They don't oppose them because they know something about them, they oppose them because they look scary.
 

Quote from: Slurpee;1937536Okay I'll bite: didn't the U.K. stuff Pandora into her box in 1997 and don't they have the lowest rates of firearm homicide in the world outside of Hong Kong and Singapore?

Yeah, a tiny island nation lacking both gang-infested urban wastelands and armed militias actively preparing for the day the government rides into town to take their guns is totally comparable to the UK on the topic of gun control. Totally.

Quote from: Thor;1937548In areas with less guns, there are generally the same number of assaults and robberies, but less of them use guns. Since assaults and robberies that involve guns are much more likely to result in a death, that means that means that countries with more guns have more fatalities than injuries in assaults.

Exactly, countries like Switzerland.
 

QuoteI never understood why we don't let animal populations just naturalize themselves. If deers overbreed and eat up all the food, resulting in mass death of deers, wouldn't that solve the deer overpopulation problem? They would adapt in a few generations to be less I'm a edgy teen, or the wolf population could rebound.

Because to start there would be deer fucking everywhere. In the roads, in your garden, all over your yard. You'd stop being like "oh cool, deer" and start thinking "fucking deer". They're going to shit everywhere, ruin everyone's cars, and leave their fucking dead bodies all over the place. Of course, it would never, ever get to that point, because humans are predators and deer taste really good, so the moment over-population got to be a remote problem people would grab their guns and have dinner. As it stands we have regulations and licenses so that people don't straight up clear them out because they taste so fucking good.

 

QuoteWell, if you actually looked at my link...
Being poor makes you about 4.4 times as likely to get shot. Being black makes you something like 4 times as likely to get shot. That's a lot, but it doesn't just make the FACT that owning a gun at all makes you statically more likely to get shot to death. Especially when you consider that the majority of gun owners in America are, in fact, white people. This is a statistic that I pulled out of my ass.

Okay, I admittedly only really gave that a cursory glance. Now that I have taken a bit more time, though, I have to wonder if you read it given the context you've posted it in. That article is about how guns are actually fairly safe to have in your house. Read it, it makes a great argument against exactly what you're saying.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937538AR-15's and handguns, however, are simply not practical for hunting.

Automatic rifles are good for shooting at pests, and both are good for close-quarters self-defense. You just need to be a responsible gun owner. You keep the shit locked up.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937538AR-15's and handguns, however, are simply not practical for hunting.

Automatic rifles are good for shooting at pests, and both are good for close-quarters self-defense. You just need to be a responsible gun owner. You keep the shit locked up.

Quote from: FamineClock;1937628My point is that sure you can never truly stop terrorism or folks whom are determined to murder a lot of people. But people bellow the age of 24 would very rarely be able to build up a network of contacts to get the neccary tools, whilst in the US it's not hard for a frustrated and pubertal young man/woman to get their hands on the right tools to murder a lot of people very fast.

This is completely untrue. You could use google and make a bomb with simple ingredients that you could probably buy within a few miles of your house if you don't already have most of it. You could be done with it by the morning. Anyone can do this. The fact that it happens so rarely speaks volumes about the lack of impulse (or at least restraint of that impulse) toward mass violence among the general populace. You don't need something semi-automatic to slaughter unarmed human beings in a room. And again, I know you haven't had the opportunity to read my other comment when I'm writing this but I want to emphasize that this is not about automatic weapons.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937629Yeah, a tiny island nation lacking both gang-infested urban wastelands and armed militias actively preparing for the day the government rides into town to take their guns is totally comparable to the UK on the topic of gun control. Totally.

Hey. We're comparing the socioeconomic patterns of first world nations across decades as they pertain to their respective cultures of violence, poverty, and historical relationship to firearms. It's several levels of abstraction away from simple cause and effect relationships. Don't talk to me like I'm a fucking idiot just because you believe two mitigating factors in a complex system are sufficient for dismissing the possibility of similar outcomes and I believe as a nationwide policy it could be implemented intelligently as to diminish potential increased criminal repercussions. Douchebag.

Moving this thread to our other gas chamber.

Quote from: Slurpee;1937644Hey. We're comparing the socioeconomic patterns of first world nations across decades as they pertain to their respective cultures of violence, poverty, and historical relationship to firearms. It's several levels of abstraction away from simple cause and effect relationships. Don't talk to me like I'm a fucking idiot just because you believe two mitigating factors in a complex system are sufficient for dismissing the possibility of similar outcomes and I believe as a nationwide policy it could be implemented intelligently as to diminish potential increased criminal repercussions. Douchebag.

Cry about it bitch.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937672Cry about it bitch.

At last we've pared your arguments down to their sole substantive component.

Quote from: Slurpee;1937674At last we've pared your arguments down to their sole substantive component.

Are you okay Slurpee? You seem uncharacteristically mad today. Or are you really just that anti-gun that it makes you emotional?

Is that really how I post when I've lost emotional control? Jesus Christ I'm fucking glorious.

hey guys chill out its only guns

Quote from: Slurpee;1937677Is that really how I post when I've lost emotional control? Jesus Christ I'm fucking glorious.

Well it's just that you started insulting me rather than continuing the discussion so I'm assuming you weren't exactly relaxed.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937710Well it's just that you started insulting me rather than continuing the discussion so I'm assuming you weren't exactly relaxed.

What discussion? You and I hadn't said a single word to eachother before your weirdly sarcastic interjection.

So am I the only one that finds it kinda funny that after all these years it's me who has the liberal viewpoint arguing against albino and absinthe's conservative one?

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937630Automatic rifles are good for shooting at pests, and both are good for close-quarters self-defense. You just need to be a responsible gun owner. You keep the shit locked up.

What pests do you live with? Also, how is an assault rifle better for close quarters than a shotgun?

I'll admit handguns are better for close quarters, but that's my point. They only exist to effectively kill people. If you have a shotgun usually you're going to start wielding it before someone gets inside the range where it becomes difficult to fire it.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937720What pests do you live with? Also, how is an assault rifle better for close quarters than a shotgun?

Also my view is that assault rifles should be harder to get, but not banned.

Also the "stuffing pandora back into it's box" doesn't apply to other countries because other countries don't have any constitutional rights to bear arms. Thus to them guns are not a right (and to some a god-given right) but a privilege. That's where the big problem lies, and there's no real way to undermine that without making a really big problem.

It's funny how often you'll read about people using guns in self defense... and missing every shot. People need to learn to calm the fuck down and aim before shooting. That scene in Pulp Fiction is actually surprisingly accurate.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937648Moving this thread to our other gas chamber.

I just made this thread to make fun of America and be edgy, I didn't expect it into a full-on political shitstorm.

Oh well, this is kind of fun too.

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937721

I'd like to note a high velocity pellet gun would do you just fine in that situation.
Or a trap. I actually have been pretty successful at live trapping the mice that get into my home.

QuoteAlso my view is that assault rifles should be harder to get, but not banned.

I suppose I wouldn't be against that. Like I said I don't like guns at all, but I don't think we need to get rid of guns if there's a way to minimize risk otherwise. There are certain guns that need to be limited at the very least.

QuoteAlso the "stuffing pandora back into it's box" doesn't apply to other countries because other countries don't have any constitutional rights to bear arms. Thus to them guns are not a right (and to some a god-given right) but a privilege. That's where the big problem lies, and there's no real way to undermine that without making a really big problem.

I know this doesn't apply to everyone, especially not you two, but I've never understood the idea of a christian owning firearms for the intent of self defense. Have you ever heard anyone reconcile those two dissonant philosophies?

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937720So am I the only one that finds it kinda funny that after all these years it's me who has the liberal viewpoint arguing against albino and absinthe's conservative one?

 
What pests do you live with? Also, how is an assault rifle better for close quarters than a shotgun?

I'll admit handguns are better for close quarters, but that's my point. They only exist to effectively kill people. If you have a shotgun usually you're going to start wielding it before someone gets inside the range where it becomes difficult to fire it.

Construing this as a liberal/conservative issue isn't really accurate. There's nothing inherently conservative about being pro-gun or liberal about being anti-gun. It may be that there are more conservative gun advocates than liberal ones but that's just because of the correlation between political parties and rural vs urban settings. Higher population density tends to mean more liberal, but it also tends to mean that there's less open space to shoot at things in. People who aren't familiar with guns tend to be afraid of them and often think they're far more dangerous and sinister than they really are.  
 
Shotguns are less than ideal for self-defense because you have to reload them. They're better for shooting at small game that are harder to hit with a slug. And yes, pistols are great for shooting something that's close to you, whether that be a human intruder, an angry bear, or a rabid dog. They're most certainly not only for killing people though, they're also good for shooting animals, shooting targets, and intimidating would-be attackers and thieves.
 
It seems that you're focused on killing, though, so I'll address that. What's wrong with killing someone who's attacking you?

I always assumed people used shotguns with birdshot for home defense because you don't have to aim it so much.

Seems pretty stupid to me, though. One shot (depending on the model) and if you miss you're screwed. Besides that, the cone on birdshot is actually surprisingly narrow in close quarters. It might as well just be a slug at close range. I wonder why shotguns are so popular. Maybe because people think "it's bigger, so it must be more good at killin stuff" or something.


Personally, I would opt for a high caliber automatic pistol with a large magazine for home defense.


EDIT:

Here's a thought; why don't we have any special laws about people with children buying guns? I don't think a parent should have guns unless they can prove that they understand how INCREDIBLY COMMON it is for children to shoot themselves. It happens constantly and it's disgusting that so many parents allow it to happen.

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1937730Construing this as a liberal/conservative issue isn't really accurate. There's nothing inherently conservative about being pro-gun or liberal about being anti-gun. It may be that there are more conservative gun advocates than liberal ones but that's just because of the correlation between political parties and rural vs urban settings. Higher population density tends to mean more liberal, but it also tends to mean that there's less open space to shoot at things in. People who aren't familiar with guns tend to be afraid of them and often think they're far more dangerous and sinister than they really are.  
 
Shotguns are less than ideal for self-defense because you have to reload them. They're better for shooting at small game that are harder to hit with a slug. And yes, pistols are great for shooting something that's close to you, whether that be a human intruder, an angry bear, or a rabid dog. They're most certainly not only for killing people though, they're also good for shooting animals, shooting targets, and intimidating would-be attackers and thieves.
 
It seems that you're focused on killing, though, so I'll address that. What's wrong with killing someone who's attacking you?

Personally? It just goes against my christian principles to harm anyone, for any reason.

Quote from: Thor;1937731I always assumed people used shotguns with birdshot for home defense because you don't have to aim it so much.

Seems pretty stupid to me, though. One shot (depending on the model) and if you miss you're screwed. Besides that, the cone on birdshot is actually surprisingly narrow in close quarters. It might as well just be a slug at close range. I wonder why shotguns are so popular. Maybe because people think "it's bigger, so it must be more good at killin stuff" or something.


Personally, I would opt for a high caliber automatic pistol with a large magazine for home defense.

I'd say a shotgun is way more intimidating. There are plenty of shotgun models that store multiple shells. Plus, the pellets only go so far. I've heard far too often the stories in Chicago of handgun bullets from gang fights or something similar striking someone in a home totally unrelated to the crime and killing them because of the distance a handgun bullet can travel and still be lethal.

QuoteHere's a thought; why don't we have any special laws about people with children buying guns? I don't think a parent should have guns unless they can prove that they understand how INCREDIBLY COMMON it is for children to shoot themselves. It happens constantly and it's disgusting that so many parents allow it to happen.

Also a valid argument.

Quote from: Thor;1937731I always assumed people used shotguns with birdshot for home defense because you don't have to aim it so much.

Seems pretty stupid to me, though. One shot (depending on the model) and if you miss you're screwed. Besides that, the cone on birdshot is actually surprisingly narrow in close quarters. It might as well just be a slug at close range. I wonder why shotguns are so popular. Maybe because people think "it's bigger, so it must be more good at killin stuff" or something.


Personally, I would opt for a high caliber automatic pistol with a large magazine for home defense.

I'd say a shotgun is way more intimidating. There are plenty of shotgun models that store multiple shells. Plus, that means the pellets only go so far. I've heard far too often the stories in Chicago of handgun bullets from gang fights or something similar striking someone in a home totally unrelated to the crime and killing them.

QuoteHere's a thought; why don't we have any special laws about people with children buying guns? I don't think a parent should have guns unless they can prove that they understand how INCREDIBLY COMMON it is for children to shoot themselves. It happens constantly and it's disgusting that so many parents allow it to happen.

Also a valid argument.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937735Personally? It just goes against my christian principles to harm anyone, for any reason.

Well that's lovely for you and other Christians if you don't want to defend yourselves, but that's got nothing to do with anyone else.

Quote from: Thor;1937731Here's a thought; why don't we have any special laws about people with children buying guns? I don't think a parent should have guns unless they can prove that they understand how INCREDIBLY COMMON it is for children to shoot themselves. It happens constantly and it's disgusting that so many parents allow it to happen.

I agree with this. I also think that people who let their children get killed through negligence should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Quote from: MarlinI've never understood the idea of a christian owning firearms for the intent of self defense.

Quote from: AmmoLandWashington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- Last week, in pointing out the problems with Jill Leporeââ,¬â,,¢s attempt to undermine the Second Amendment and justify more gun control, I focused on the fact that our right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right.

As such, it preceded not only the Second Amendment but also the founding of the United States.

In other words: We donââ,¬â,,¢t have the right to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says so; rather, the Bill of Rights says so because the right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to our very being: it is a right with which we were endowed by our Creator.

[/URL]

I also put a link to the full article. These aren't my views, but this is how a lot of people feel.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937735I'd say a shotgun is way more intimidating. There are plenty of shotgun models that store multiple shells. Plus, the pellets only go so far. I've heard far too often the stories in Chicago of handgun bullets from gang fights or something similar striking someone in a home totally unrelated to the crime and killing them because of the distance a handgun bullet can travel and still be lethal.

I can understand the intimidation factor if you just want to scare somebody off, but for actually using it a pistol is just better in every way.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937729I know this doesn't apply to everyone, especially not you two, but I've never understood the idea of a christian owning firearms for the intent of self defense. Have you ever heard anyone reconcile those two dissonant philosophies?

Oh man, you brought up religion. You opened up the debate forum pandoras box.

Anyway, as far as Christianity goes, there are plenty of places in the bible, both the old and new testament, that specifically condone killing various sinners. Need I remind you that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? The vast majority of condoned killing is in the old testement (most of the threats of death in the new testament are going to be fulfilled by Jesus himself). If you're Catholic, then all of the books that tell you to kill people in the old testament are still canon. For more modern christians, you can just assume all criminals are gay and kill them ala Romans 1:31-32

Quote from: AbsintheClock;1937742I agree with this. I also think that people who let their children get killed through negligence should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.





I also put a link to the full article. These aren't my views, but this is how a lot of people feel.

I don't understand how someone can believe there are god-given rights to things that didn't even exist when Jesus was alive. Do they even know the words "love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you"?

Quote from: Thor;1937769I can understand the intimidation factor if you just want to scare somebody off, but for actually using it a pistol is just better in every way.


 
Oh man, you brought up religion. You opened up the debate forum pandoras box.

Anyway, as far as Christianity goes, there are plenty of places in the bible, both the old and new testament, that specifically condone killing various sinners. Need I remind you that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? The vast majority of condoned killing is in the old testement (most of the threats of death in the new testament are going to be fulfilled by Jesus himself). If you're Catholic, then all of the books that tell you to kill people in the old testament are still canon. For more modern christians, you can just assume all criminals are gay and kill them ala Romans 1:31-32

Last time I checked the only Old Testament teachings that need to be followed are the Ten Commandments, since those are the only teachings specifically handed down by God. There is also clear teaching from Jesus saying that violence and revenge are wrong.
All I see in that Romans chapter is that talks about how all sins are deserving of their punishment, but it may depend on the translation. You could also say he is implying the greater death of the soul via damnation, instead of the life everlasting given by being received into the kingdom.

Going further into this would be its own thread, though.

:cowboy:

As far as the children thing goes, that's why it's so important to keep your guns locked up. It's also why it's important to teach gun safety early. By the time your kid is old enough to figure out how to steal your key and get into your cabinet they should be well-versed in gun safety.

Quote from: Marlin Clock;1937791Last time I checked the only Old Testament teachings that need to be followed are the Ten Commandments, since those are the only teachings specifically handed down by God. There is also clear teaching from Jesus saying that violence and revenge are wrong.

I said if you're a CATHOLIC. The Catholic Church is extremely specific about which books are true and which books are no longer valid covenants with God. They can be pretty sure about their choices, too, since the Pope can speak directly with God himself to decide which books are true.

If you're a Mormon, then you have tons of reasons to kill people. Hell, in the Book of Mormon Jesus himself advocated a war with swords and stuff.

For a more sane Christian who doesn't believe in "living prophets", there really isn't any good reason to kill anybody, ever, for any reason unless you REALLY stretch your interpretation. However, keep in mind that many denominational Christian churches still read and believe both the Old and New testament, and for those people they have every right, religiously, to shoot gays, disobedient children and slaves, thieves, and adulterers. Your personal understanding of the bible is not the only one, nor is it even the most common. I think most "christians" in America don't even know that the Old Testament is no longer valid (especially with how often Christian republicans will quote that anti-gay passage)