joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I need to explain something to me. In terms that aren’t emotional, but are rational. No conjecture, no links, just your thoughts.
My thoughts on gun control?
Yeah cus we dont average the same amount of gun threads on here as there are mass shootings in America....
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
WHY SHOULD GUNS BE REMOVED FROM THE HANDS OF US CITIZENS WHEN WE DON’T REMOVE ALL WEAPONS FROM THE HANDS OF PEOPLE?
Last I checked US Citizens are people, therefore, if guns are being removed from people, it also includes US Citizens. Unless some law has changed, no non-citizen (with exceptions due to circumstances) could have a gun, legally.
Why should guns be removed? Several factors (in no order of importance):
A ) Criminals or those with intention to harm or kill other people.
B ) Those whom are a danger to themselves (i.e. PTSD, depression, other mental/emotional issue) or others (wife-beater, rapist, etc).
C ) Those whom take their hatred of our government beyond the definition of 'peaceful assembly'.
D ) Those whom fail to understand how to operate as a person in society (just cus you can carry an AR-15 into an airport, doesn't mean you should).
That the sort of people more likely to have firearms have mental and/or emotional problems and are not getting treatment. They suffer from paranoia, schizophrenia, bi-polar, depression, or 'anger management issues'. The more impulsive a person is, the greater likelihood of firearm ownership. Likewise the ones whom do not understand the law, or simple definitions to concepts used in the media (i.e. liberal, conservative, democratic, the republic, reality, fantasy, etc.).
That its one thing to stand on a street corner and hold a sign saying 'guns for honest and law abiding citizens'; its completely different doing it while armed to the teeth! In the first instance, you are using your 1st amendment right "right to peaceful assembly". The second could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as intimidation towards those whom have different thoughts on the subject matter. Not understanding the difference shows a considerable lack of thought and wisdom.
As a society we decide on the laws of the land. At current we are 'happy' with firearm laws. That people seem to get upset when there is....another....mass shooting every week or two. If your 'OK' with going to funerals, do everything you can to stop reasonable firearm laws. If you hate the idea of burying your loved ones due to gunshot wounds rather than natural causes; do something productive.
But in that, we as individuals also have to remember that together we make up society. Yet, as society, to recognized that each person may have one or more genuinely good reasons to have a firearm. For example, an older gentleman in his 70's who lives in a more dangerous part of town. Or a farmer whom lives 30 minutes from police assistance. The abused wife seeking to keep her and her children safe from the deranged and out-of-control husband.
The point is, that we as citizens and individuals of society have to keep in mind that our decisions.....do.....effect others whose situations may not be anything like our own. However, our systems of laws are on the basis of applying to all persons equally. Which means if we allow individual firearm ownership, how do we best determine which situation works best for us? The current method creates many problems and shows no signs of improving. Yet there are signs it could get worst due to any number of factors (internal and external).
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Please remember that the following kill, maim, destroy, etc. and why we aren’t banning them as well. Please use in context.
Each of these is currently on most legal books as 'actions that lands the person in jail and awaiting trial'. Technically speaking, 'maiming' someone is banned from action. That people do it, which is why they are caught, sent to trial for determination. If the judge or jury decides, they are charged with the penalty. And that penalty could take several forms.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Whether an item can actually inflict such harm often does not affect the designation. For example, an unloaded gun or a gun with a trigger lock are often treated like any other firearm.
That is because they....ARE....like any other firearm. Or do you think "If you paint it pink with the HELLO KITTY logo on it' it some how is less deadly?
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
A weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."
You have 100 people in a room (dimensions of that room: W: 100', L: 100', H:15'). Assuming no exits besides the one you just entered. And none of them are armed with anything more than the cloths on their back. Which of the following can kill the fastest with the least amount of knowledge, effort and practice (for firearms, assume 'enough ammo'):
A ) Semi-Auto Pistol
B ) Semi-Auto Rifle (be it assault or not)
C ) Full-Auto Pistol
D ) Full-Auto Rifle (be it assault or not)
E ) A Wooden Club
F ) A Steel/Aluminum Club
G ) A Wooden Baseball Bat
H ) A Aluminum Baseball Bat
I ) A Monkey Wrench
J ) An Automobile
The persons with the guns have the advantage hands down. To say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. On the same day Sandy Hook took place in America, some nut attacked 20 people in China with a knife. Difference? In America we had 20 dead children and 6 dead adults. In China, 20 injured but would make full recoveries.
When Charlie Hebdo was attacked and killed months ago, a group of 2nd amendment individuals tried to examine things in details. They tried the notion of 'if only one person had a gun; things would have been different'. They tried many different ways. Each time, the attackers were successful and most if not all the defenders were killed. The only times most of the defenders and 'solo gun owner' lived is when they all FLED. The difference between both is the second group was 'ready' for the attack, unlike the first. There have been other simulations. In each one, the defenders lost when they tried to engage the hostiles.
The one thing most gun nuts are....deathly....afraid of, is scientific study on the issues and myths. To see in any number of situations how likely someone might be in handling that situation. Many on here are....also....afraid of such studies. Because they don't use statistics found in a government document. They use observation of a given situation and see how often it replicates itself. Including interviewing the persons afterward for additional information. Most gun nuts would be afraid to put their bullshit up to a real scientific test!
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Any gun, knife, sword, crossbow, slingshot or other weapon which can cause bodily harm to people (even though used for target shooting). If a person is harmed by such a weapon that is left unguarded, improperly used, or causes harm even to a person who plays with it without permission, the victim or his/her survivors can sue
And all of these items have one or more restrictions on them. That mishandling them that results in harm or death is criminal. That if it destroys another's property, can be sued. But I dont see most of those gun nuts carrying around sling shots to defend themselves, do I? "Just hold still while I set the lock on my crossbow. Ok, wait a second longer buddy! I'm going to really kick your ass!!!! Ok, Got the bolt in there, now where was I.....oh yeah....."stop or I'll fucking waste You with my Crossbow of Slaying!"' (doesn't have the same effect as with a 1911).
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1 AND 100,000,000 IS STATISTICS WHICH DON’T MATTER.
Which is why I asked the gun nuts, "If your so concern about being harmed or killed, and hence the 'need' for a firearm; why are you not warming a NBC suit 24/7/365?"
Since given the likelihood of having to use said firearm towards a threatening entity is pretty low (not even 0.01%). And that you could get cancer from any number of external sources. Or be inflicted by a terrorist biological weapon of mass destruction (or a serious case of the flu). Or a rail car ruptures after falling off the track, releasing dangerous gasses that float into your backyard (and you inhale). All of these are much more likely, particularly the serious flu cases of this last winter, then you needing a firearm to defend yourself. So therefore, if you have the gun and not the NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL warfare suit 24/7/365; aren't you sort of not protecting yourself enough? Anything less is just fooling around like an immature child with a gun. And we have all heard how well that usually goes over.....
In fact, your many more times likely to experience an accident that is harmful or lethal to yourself or someone else, then repel an evil-doer. Many more people are successful with firearms than any other cause when trying to kill themselves.
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Seems arguments get changed to gun arguments so lets get it on.
The problem with the topic in this nation is the number of people that know....shit....about the reality of firearm laws and usage. I can take the 'vast' knowledge all of you have on the ACA as a good measuring stick here. The 18th century understanding of firearms and the 2015 are....very....different. Just like our understanding of who and how one can vote, the limitations of presidential terms, and knowledge you can have a trial by jury for a criminal damage amount of more than $20.
We can be reasonable about this, or behave like little children. Meanwhile, people are getting slaughtered in shooting after shooting in this nation. All other civilized nations restrict their ownership. The NRA does not protect you nor tries to help you from that evil government; they are a shill for the firearm industry. That much in the way of misinformation has been very successful in convincing people of ideas and concepts that were NOT within the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers did not state 'anyone can have a firearm', but "A well regulated militia....". We can 'thank' the US Supreme Court for allowing a greater ability of profit to be generated at the expense of US Citizen lives....
|
RE: Gun Control - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread