Mass shooting in Albuquerque

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Armies are also a deterrent but there are still wars, just because it's a deterrent, doesn't mean that it's going to work every time. Not to mention that stats on gun deaths include Justifiable Homicide (self defense), Police action, and accidents. It's not exactly a very good case against the dangers of guns when the murders committed with them are the largest majority and usually done with illegally acquired weapons(Sandy Hook is a good example).

I don't agree with those who hunt for sport either. I don't see the point of killing something for the hell of it.

As for recreation, that's each to his own. I don't like to play Soccer (football to you foreigners, lol) but I know other people do, and I'm fine with that. Skeet shooting, target shooting, and full-auto shoots are fun.

I never said you should do something just because it's a right, but if it's a right, why shouldn't you be able to do it if you want. It's about choice, you can choose not to own one, and although depending on where you live, that could be a bad Idea, it's still your choice.

Making something illegal wont get rid of that. Ever heard of Prohibition? Not sure how many other western countries tried it, but I know it doesn't work well for us. Look at all the tax dollars wasted on the War on Drugs.

Originally posted by Bakatono
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Typical troll. Always climbing up on a cross.

Eta. You absolutely are a troll. The very definition of one. This is because you troll Ats specifically looking for these threads to spout your gun hating nonsense. Doesn't get much more trollish than that.

Trollololol.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)

I was under the impression a troll was someone who deliberately derails threads, resorts to personal insults etc etc

Once again just because someone has a different opinion to you doesnt make them a troll

But thanks for your intelligent input, in 2 posts youve managed to convey absolutely nothing of any note.

Sounds kinda trollish to me

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


If it were possible to ban guns from everyone you would have a valid argument. If, magically, they could be I invented or be removed from the planet you are correct. No one could be killed by them and any arguments for needing them would be pretty much moot.

However. This is the real world and guns can't be uninvented or magically disappeared so assuming that a law against them will prevent their use is naive at best and just plain delusional in any case.

As an Aussie you can only speak from your point of reference. Meanin you know not of which you speak. America is very different from oz and has a very different culture and history. Without having grown up here you cannot understand it any more than I can fully understand Aussie culture because I didn't grow up there.

One of the main differences is that America is made up of so many different people while oz is very homogenous. Sure you have some foreigners who moved there but you have nothing compared to the US. This mixing makes for a very different culture. Now add a sprinkle of politicians exploiting differences between the different cultures and you get distrust. Add a crappy economy, government flimmflamery, and a couple decades of touchy feely nonsense where everybody wins and no one is responsible for their actions, covered in liberal bull# where freedom of speech is used to condone things like the piss Christ and mass murder on regular television shows (CSI, walking dead, dexter, NCIS, SOA, breaking bad, etc...) and we have a moral breakdown. So. We have a highly mixed society with politicians exploiting the difference and kids are assaulted with a deluge of extreme violence on tv and games every day. That is what leads to violence. Not guns.

Your arguments attack the symptom not the cause. Like medicine. You can take all the pain killers you want but they won't cure cancer, just attempt to mask the pain.

What is needed is a shift back to moral values which teach people respect for life and for one another. Guns are an easy target but just look at all the news about kids just beating the crap out of one another, horrible cyberbullying, rapes like Ohio a few weeks back or India, and other stuff such as this. There is a breakdown in morals worldwide. Not just in the US. This breakdown has manifested in some high profile shootings lately so all the goody too shoes come out of the woodwork demanding that the implements of destruction be removed, not that the cause of the destruction be dealt with: lack of morals manifesting in bad behavior controlled by powerful psychotropic meds.

If you want to have a logical and rational discussion I am sure you will find many of the gun nuts, as you call them, willing to discuss and maybe even agree with you if you are truly attempting to solve the problem. Not just crusading against a tool with little rational or logical thought.



It is very easy to speak against what is going on here as you are speaking from a position of ignorance.


Eta: Australia has 22 million people. The US has 315 million. There are more people classified as Hispanic on the latest census than there are people on oz. 52 million Hispanics I believ 14 million Asians. And so on.

Not really and apples to apples argument.

Dp.

reply to post by dave_welch


Let me start by saying HOW FREAKIN DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!
Im an Aussie, the only type of football is AFL, soccer is a game for girls and young boys with over protective mothers. Ill excuse the insult this once but next time Ill be reporting you to a mod

OK back on topic

When you say the SH weapons were illegal what do you mean?
They were Illegally taken from his mother or his mother got them illegally?

Sad fact is guns are so easily available on the blackmarket due to the fact they are everywhere in your society

I never said you should do something just because it's a right, but if it's a right, why shouldn't you be able to do it if you want. It's about choice, you can choose not to own one, and although depending on where you live, that could be a bad Idea, it's still your choice.

Thats the thing with rights, if its a "right" you are entitled to do it.
The where you live thing was my point, you and me know its wrong to beat anyone let alone your wife but in some cultures its normal and acceptable, guys who grew up seeing their dads hit their mums and are now hitting their wives would see what they were doing as correct. You need to be outside of the situation and culture to get a full view of it. Just as you find wife beating disgusting many of your cultural and economic equals look at your views on gun ownership in the same way, what does this tell you?

Making something illegal wont get rid of that. Ever heard of Prohibition? Not sure how many other western countries tried it, but I know it doesn't work well for us. Look at all the tax dollars wasted on the War on Drugs.

I agree, crims will still have access to guns but what about children? take the gun away from Mum and Dad and the kids access to guns is also gone

Hardly anyone in OZ or the UK has a gun yet the crims arent running rampant, you guys would be OK Im certain

reply to post by Bakatono


That post looks like you put alot of effort into writing it, bit far to go to feed a troll dont you think

Ill engage in a discussion with you after an apology for your previous posts

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Bakatono

 

That post looks like you put alot of effort into writing it, bit far to go to feed a troll dont you think

Ill engage in a discussion with you after an apology for your previous posts

Bored in a waiting room

But I guess you cannot discuss this subject. Just stand up straw man arguments.

So I guess my point = made.

Thanks.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Hahaha! Sorry about the incorrect soccer assumption!

What I mean by the SH guns was that he took them from his mother, and appears he killed her for them, as we all know murder is illegal and anything acquired by murder is also illegal.

About the Black Market, that's true, also because the gun industry is such a big part of our economy and such a big employer, which is also a bad reason to get rid of them, considering how many more people that would add to the vast unemployment rate. The gun industry is kind've a double edged sword in that respect.

As far as many of our social an economic equals viewing are gun policies as disgusting or whatever: The same could be said by us in view of they're gun policies. Although gun crimes and deaths are down, at least in the UK violent crime is up, putting it at number 2 in Europe for Violent crime. With a violent crime rate of 2,034 per 100,000 (US is at 466 per 100,000) according to Daily Mail

So, though homicide may be down, violent crime is up. Not really sure on if that's a good trade or not.

As for Criminals not running rampant with guns as opposed to the UK or Australia: According to the Violent Crime stats posted, that's not technically true, but I understand what you mean. However, consider that the US has around 260,000,000 legally owned guns. I wanted to show stats of illegally owned guns, but couldn't find any. But Considering the amount of legal guns, the amount of illegal ones is probably over 1,000,000. Which is probably far more than in the UK or Australia. So the numbers of violent gun crimes after a gun ban in the US would still be rather high, an still put us high in the running for gun deaths in the western world at least. Banning the guns would really just be putting a band-aid on the problem, especially when you take into consideration that in most states, rifles and shotguns are not required to be registered, so it would be much easier for people to not give them up. That's the main difference.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I want you to respond to my argument by either 1) showing the premises to be false, or 2) showing that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

I did not ignore your question on rights - I demonstrated that your analogues don't work & your question was like comparing apples and kiwis.

reply to post by Bakatono


Have you considered that it may be your tactics?

Originally posted by Bakatono

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Bakatono

 

That post looks like you put alot of effort into writing it, bit far to go to feed a troll dont you think

Ill engage in a discussion with you after an apology for your previous posts

Bored in a waiting room

But I guess you cannot discuss this subject. Just stand up straw man arguments.

So I guess my point = made.

Thanks.

may I suggest in future even when bored dont post unless it actually adds to the topic, calling someone a troll and not posting anything else of substance is thread derailling and text book troll behaviour.

Yes I obviously cant discuss the subject, it was someone else typing all the other replies, its only really the troll me when responding to you.

The fact you try to engage in discussion with me would appear to invalidate your earlier assumption of my trolliness. You admit it by typing me a nice big reply yet cant apologise

Kinda proves my point that gun nuts are never wrong even when they blatantly are

thanks

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


May I point out that a gun is a morally neutral object - e.g., it cannot be 'wrong' anymore than the color red can be 'wrong;' rather, the morally significant variable is exactly how an agent behaves with the object. Your statement "Kinda proves my point that gun nuts are never wrong even when they blatantly are" falls short of its intended target, as the statment isn't coherent.

Originally posted by kissy princess
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

I want you to respond to my argument by either 1) showing the premises to be false, or 2) showing that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

I did not ignore your question on rights - I demonstrated that your analogues don't work & your question was like comparing apples and kiwis.

Well then in line with your demonstrations I answered your questions by showing it wasnt as simple as the 3 questions you posed.

If guns were the only form of self defence available then yes your argument would be valid.
The fact its not the only available method of self defence and the fact guns are used more often as an offensive weapon completely invalidates your little word game.

Anything can be proven if you take away enough variables

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by AguyAndAgirl

 

So you get your gun, you and the MRS are on the couch watching TV and next thing you know an intruder has gotten in and is pointing a gun at you. What good is the gun in your safe gonna do?
For guns to be even close to effective for what you gun nuts love to claim you would need to walk around with it in hand, cocked and loaded. Not terribly prectical now is it

An intruder doesn't just "get in"... The dogs bark, I check my cameras and the rest I cannot tell you. Have you ever tried to kick in a door with a door with a dead bolt and chain lock? It's pretty hard...

You are thinking like an unprepared lazy man with no intelligent thought process towards self protection.

Since you dont own a gun why the firetruck do you even care????

You don't deserve to know the answer

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


My argument is valid; it is basic logic not a word game. That there exist a variety of other forms of self-defense does nothing to undermine or rebut the argument.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by kissy princess
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

the fact guns are used more often as an offensive weapon completely invalidates your little word game.

I would love to know where you get your facts from.

Unless you mean the GOVERNMENT uses guns offensively more often than defensively, then you might be right.

edit on 21-1-2013 by AguyAndAgirl because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2013 by AguyAndAgirl because: (no reason given)

I understand perfectly how rights fit in, they are used by people to excuse otherwise inexcusable behaviour.

This explains it all, so in your opinion rights are only there to excuse inexcuseable behavior.

You are failing, FAILING to see the one basic rule of rights.

A person's right ENDS at the point that it INFRINGES upon another persons right.

One does NOT have the right to beat another person (Exception self defense). As that INFRINGES on the other person's rights. One does NOT have the rights to own a slave, because that INFRINGES on the other person's freedoms.

You should learn the basic concept of what a right is before you preach about taking them away from others.

come on guys, try and keep it civil.

2nd line

reply to post by dave_welch

What I mean by the SH guns was that he took them from his mother, and appears he killed her for them, as we all know murder is illegal and anything acquired by murder is also illegal.

But how did his mother get them? legally and most likely quite easily. If she hadnt of had the gun then the kid wouldnt have been able to get one.

About the Black Market, that's true, also because the gun industry is such a big part of our economy and such a big employer, which is also a bad reason to get rid of them, considering how many more people that would add to the vast unemployment rate. The gun industry is kind've a double edged sword in that respect.

Valid point but not really a good argument, surely even you must be uncomfortable with this. Looking at things from an economic perspective is very rarely a good thing. Its arguments like this that are the reason the environment is so screwed

As far as many of our social an economic equals viewing are gun policies as disgusting or whatever: The same could be said by us in view of they're gun policies. Although gun crimes and deaths are down, at least in the UK violent crime is up, putting it at number 2 in Europe for Violent crime. With a violent crime rate of 2,034 per 100,000 (US is at 466 per 100,000) according to Daily Mail

A very significant factor in both countries crime stats rise is the change in gathering the stats, whether a report is made or charges laid things like bar fights and even kids fighting is included in these stats. Not saying these places are crime free or even safr than the US but these stats are not a good indication of whats happening on the ground.

So, though homicide may be down, violent crime is up. Not really sure on if that's a good trade or not.

Come on dude, would you prefer your son at home with a black eye and bruised ego or at worst hospital with a stab wound or on a slab in the morgue with multiple gunshot wounds

When it comes to your Illegal gun problem it is a direct result of your legal gun availability. You acknowledged how simple it is for the change to happen, kid walks into parents room and picks up a legal gun, wlaks out with illegal one!!!
Banning guns today would have very little impact on your life true, but as guns were handed in and destroyed and only a tiny trickle came in to replace them things would get better.
You guys have dug yourselves a pretty big hole and wont be able to get out of it in a hurry.

The way I see it is you can keep digging and pass a worse problem to the next generation or you can make a stand and say enough is enough.

More guns to gun violence is the same as printing more money coz were broke, they do nothing but perpetuate the problem

reply to post by AguyAndAgirl

An intruder doesn't just "get in"... The dogs bark, I check my cameras and the rest I cannot tell you. Have you ever tried to kick in a door with a door with a dead bolt and chain lock? It's pretty hard...
You are thinking like an unprepared lazy man with no intelligent thought process towards self protection.

And your thinking like a paranoid psycho, dogs, cameras and stuff you cant tell me

Im guessing you dont have a gun as they wouldnt let you have one