Jump to content


Photo

Weapons Control (Part 3)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
363 replies to this topic

#1 m1hawkgsm

m1hawkgsm

    Forum Mathematiquè & Reduntarian

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • LocationLand of Hobos and Ken

Posted 27 April 2013 - 09:20 PM

Posting Again the Original Topic so we newcomers can join the fray without too much trouble understanding the context of the issues presented~

Old Thread HERE

I'm sure you've all read and heard about this, the Newtown, Connecticut massacre of school children and personnel.

There's also, curiously, the assault of children in China by a man armed with a knife, here.

There are number of issues that come up. The classic is gun control, or, more generally, control of access to heavy armaments. The arguments for more and less access have been made often and variously, with statistics given of nations (such as Canada and Switzerland), which have higher per capita spending of armaments, but less crime.

There's also the argument of cultural context, where a nation like Switzerland is drastically different from that of the US, to say nothing of China.

Here, I'll put a few of my thoughts before opening this up to everyone:

1. Supposing that weapons control should be avoided where possible, to what limit should this be taken? Should laymen be allowed access to portable nuclear weapons (assuming they exist)? If not, then how is the lasse-faire argument valid in the first place? What criteria should be utilized in setting limits?

2. How should society treat weapons and violence in its cultural views? I quote BBC:

The BBC's John Sudworth in Shanghai says many of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men, prompting a debate about the effects of China's recent, rapid social change and the inability of an antiquated hospital system to cope with rising levels of mental illness.

Indeed, but there is more to this statement. It's well known that the cultural shift (which is, quite frankly, an understatement) of Chinese from rural, traditionalist families, into fragmented cities and megalopolises, has caused a great deal of discontent and confusion among lots of people.

There are books and reports (which I've read one or two) which deal with this--from family expectations, gender roles, and self esteem.

Where does violence figure into this? Unlike the US and many Western nations, the Chinese political structure isn't very forgiving or empathetic towards criminals as these. We hear about insanity pleas and long winded appeals processes. That's nonexistent in China.

I honestly wish we had a native or scholar here who could talk about it in more detail, but I think it's interesting to consider the weapons control question from that angle as well--not everyone has the same liberal/conservative view set that the Western world has.

I'd also like to extend this debate to non-traditional weapons, including non-firearms and even nuclear weapons.

Anyways, cheers. This shall be the first OneManga Forums Debate thread.


D9wwdJt.jpg


#2 Vl731

Vl731

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,519 posts
  • LocationIn the House of Hades

Posted 27 April 2013 - 10:31 PM

Why are you a cave man or something.

 

Or a better idea when you go out to hunt someone gives you a rented gun for you to use.

 

Wow, talk about insulting. So people can't hunt for sport? I mean my family goes deer hunting every year, doesn't make them us cavemen.

 

Most people like to use rifles/weapons that they've fine tuned to fit their own needs, so "renting guns" isn't going to go over too well, if at all. You want to rent bullets to? How much you want to bet the number of "hunting accidents" will probably increase?


MAL

 

Not a Toonami Faithfool.

 

"Ass Pull": Often the first term people use to show how dissatisfied they are with something before it can be explained.

 

"Bull shit": often the first term used when a person expresses their dissatisfaction with something and they don't like the explaination.


#3 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,917 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 11:18 PM

Wow, talk about insulting. So people can't hunt for sport? I mean my family goes deer hunting every year, doesn't make them us cavemen.

 

Most people like to use rifles/weapons that they've fine tuned to fit their own needs, so "renting guns" isn't going to go over too well, if at all. You want to rent bullets to? How much you want to bet the number of "hunting accidents" will probably increase?

 

Educate me on the bolded. Seriously. Because I'm not following. A hunter should be able to use any hunter's gun. And he/she should be trained to use such guns competently. So why would the renting of guns all of sudden increase the number of hunting accidents? I'm not a hunter or gun owner, so I really would like to understand how this works.


  • waleuska likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#4 Vl731

Vl731

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,519 posts
  • LocationIn the House of Hades

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:59 AM

I guess you don't understand what I mean by "hunting related accidents".

 

Let me first put it in perspective, since people are talking about taking all the guns away from people and then only "allowing" them to use guns by "renting" them for things like hunting. You get that much right? So.. Say i have a problem with Wall-e. I don't have me a gun to shoot him with if I wanted to. but.. Let's say I invite him to go hunting.

 

Get the picture now?


MAL

 

Not a Toonami Faithfool.

 

"Ass Pull": Often the first term people use to show how dissatisfied they are with something before it can be explained.

 

"Bull shit": often the first term used when a person expresses their dissatisfaction with something and they don't like the explaination.


#5 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:12 AM

I guess you don't understand what I mean by "hunting related accidents".

 

Let me first put it in perspective, since people are talking about taking all the guns away from people and then only "allowing" them to use guns by "renting" them for things like hunting. You get that much right? So.. Say i have a problem with Wall-e. I don't have me a gun to shoot him with if I wanted to. but.. Let's say I invite him to go hunting.

 

Get the picture now?

And will you get 12k "hunting accidents" per year?


Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#6 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,618 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:10 AM

Educate me on the bolded. Seriously. Because I'm not following. A hunter should be able to use any hunter's gun. And he/she should be trained to use such guns competently. So why would the renting of guns all of sudden increase the number of hunting accidents? I'm not a hunter or gun owner, so I really would like to understand how this works.

as a hunter myself I personally like to have my own rifle that I can care for properly and know that I have it at my own home so that should I not have enough money to "rent" a gun I can still hunt for just the amount that bullets cost. However there will not be an increase in hunting related accidents due to this. These are primarily a factor of people whom were either not trained or drunk. the thing that should be changed is the idea that it is good to hunt while intoxicated. Which is a bad idea.



Posting Again the Original Topic so we newcomers can join the fray without too much trouble understanding the context of the issues presented~

Old Thread HERE

I'm sure you've all read and heard about this, the Newtown, Connecticut massacre of school children and personnel.

There's also, curiously, the assault of children in China by a man armed with a knife, here.

There are number of issues that come up. The classic is gun control, or, more generally, control of access to heavy armaments. The arguments for more and less access have been made often and variously, with statistics given of nations (such as Canada and Switzerland), which have higher per capita spending of armaments, but less crime.

There's also the argument of cultural context, where a nation like Switzerland is drastically different from that of the US, to say nothing of China.

Here, I'll put a few of my thoughts before opening this up to everyone:

1. Supposing that weapons control should be avoided where possible, to what limit should this be taken? Should laymen be allowed access to portable nuclear weapons (assuming they exist)? If not, then how is the lasse-faire argument valid in the first place? What criteria should be utilized in setting limits?

Personally I say get rid of easily concealable weapons and set a limit on the caliber of round to be used. Limiting the use of accessories is just bad for the economy and is just altogether generally silly.


2. How should society treat weapons and violence in its cultural views? I quote BBC:

Indeed, but there is more to this statement. It's well known that the cultural shift (which is, quite frankly, an understatement) of Chinese from rural, traditionalist families, into fragmented cities and megalopolises, has caused a great deal of discontent and confusion among lots of people.

Society should treat weapons with the due respect that they should treat any object that can be potentially deadly. They should have restrictions on the use of them, but not anything over the top. Violence is something that is part of human nature and is unlikely to change any time soon. I guess the best way to go about that Is try to teach the children the better option of nonviolent methods. But those are not the easiest route and will still probably not stop it.


There are books and reports (which I've read one or two) which deal with this--from family expectations, gender roles, and self esteem.

Where does violence figure into this? Unlike the US and many Western nations, the Chinese political structure isn't very forgiving or empathetic towards criminals as these. We hear about insanity pleas and long winded appeals processes. That's nonexistent in China.

change creates fear, fear creates uncertainty, uncertainty creates panic, panic creates confusion, confusion creates a fight or flight response. Most will take fight and try to make a way that they can live within this new normal. some will take flight and flee to the countryside. this is just my view on it though. I am no expert on the matter.


I honestly wish we had a native or scholar here who could talk about it in more detail, but I think it's interesting to consider the weapons control question from that angle as well--not everyone has the same liberal/conservative view set that the Western world has.

I'd also like to extend this debate to non-traditional weapons, including non-firearms and even nuclear weapons.

we have been debating knives and such but they are usually pushed aside for some reason. Knives dont seem to be a general problem with most people here as they are seen as not being originally formed to be "lethal" which is an entire misconception as they were originated to kill animals. >_> how silly I find that some see a weapon designed originally to kill animals is treated differently than one that was originally made to kill humans and is also used to kill animals. Humans are animals so they should be treated the same no?


Anyways, cheers. This shall be the first OneManga Forums Debate thread.

:/ wut?


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#7 Vl731

Vl731

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,519 posts
  • LocationIn the House of Hades

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:13 AM

And will you get 12k "hunting accidents" per year?

 

And will you ever actually stop any murders just by taking the guns from the law abiding citizens or do you ever think your hypothetical situation would ever possibly happen in the real world?

 

Just saying, People will find ways regardless of what laws you want to throw out there.


MAL

 

Not a Toonami Faithfool.

 

"Ass Pull": Often the first term people use to show how dissatisfied they are with something before it can be explained.

 

"Bull shit": often the first term used when a person expresses their dissatisfaction with something and they don't like the explaination.


#8 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:13 AM

And will you ever actually stop any murders just by taking the guns from the law abiding citizens or do you ever think your hypothetical situation would ever possibly happen in the real world?

 

Just saying, People will find ways regardless of what laws you want to throw out there.

Yes you will. Why? Because eventually one of those "law abiding citizens" is going to break the law. Or if not then eventually a criminal is going to get his/her hands on a gun that belongs to a "law abiding citizen". 

 

But let's say you don't stop a single murder by taking away guns from "law abiding citizens". You will stop accidental deaths, over 600 of them per year, which is more than 30 times the average number of deaths due to terrorist activities per year in the US. 

 

 

It's no surprise  why guns account for half the murders in the US. 1) They're readily available and 2) It's pretty easy to kill someone with a gun.

If guns weren't readily available then how would criminals get a hold of them? If they had to rely on their hands/feet/knives there'd be far fewer murders because they aren't as efficient at killing as a gun is. Obviously not all of those 11-13K murders would be avoided but a large majority of them would be.

With enough rounds and a decent weapon a determined individual could easily take 100 lives, but trying that with a knife or a baseball bat is nowhere near as simple. 

 

 

What you're "just saying" is that you don't want to give up your gun for purely selfish reasons, nothing more, nothing less. I know that sounds like I'm being harsh but ultimately it's the truth

http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013


  • Zeando likes this

Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#9 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,618 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:26 AM

Yes you will. Why? Because eventually one of those "law abiding citizens" is going to break the law.

funny now that would make them no longer a law abiding citizen now wouldnt it. Thats like saying to not allow anyone to do anything because they are possibly going to go bad at some point in time. be a little more reasonable.

Or if not then eventually a criminal is going to get his/her hands on a gun that belongs to a "law abiding citizen".

gah I hate when this stuff happens. anywho a law abiding citizen having their gun taken away from a criminal is a crime. you cant stop crimes from happening yes I admit it.

But let's say you don't stop a single murder by taking away guns from "law abiding citizens". You will stop accidental deaths, over 600 of them per year, which is more than 30 times the average number of deaths due to terrorist activities per year in the US. 

accidental deaths. trying to stop those are like taking knives away from law abiding citizens because they might cut themselves and become infected. If they were not so poorly trained with these weapons those "accidents" which are purely the result of stupidity or intoxication. If you treat your weapon with the respect it deserves then you will find that far less of those accidents occur.


 

If guns weren't readily available then how would criminals get a hold of them? If they had to rely on their hands/feet/knives there'd be far fewer murders because they aren't as efficient at killing as a gun is. Obviously not all of those 11-13K murders would be avoided but a large majority of them would be.

With enough rounds and a decent weapon a determined individual could easily take 100 lives, but trying that with a knife or a baseball bat is nowhere near as simple. 

they seem readily available enough in sweden and france as well but I dont see them having the same numbers.

It's no surprise  why guns account for half the murders in the US. 1) They're readily available and 2) It's pretty easy to kill someone with agun.

What you're "just saying" is that you don't want to give up your gun for purely selfish reasons, nothing more, nothing less. I know that sounds like I'm being harsh but ultimately it's the truth

http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013

how unrealistic this graph is. There is never any known amount of years that a person can live before they die. the years "stolen are nothing more than a figment of imagination. With life there is death that death can never truly be guessed as to when. I noticed most of those were supposed to live for twice as long. tell me now does this seem realistic? to me it certainly doesn't. this is merely somebody posting a chart to try and make their view seem superior. seem being the key word here. try something we can actually tell.


Edited by disastrousmaster, 28 April 2013 - 07:30 AM.

                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#10 Nmaan

Nmaan

    King of the Sports Discussion

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • LocationWhere strength is a poor substitute for courage.

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:00 AM

funny now that would make them no longer a law abiding citizen now wouldnt it. Thats like saying to not allow anyone to do anything because they are possibly going to go bad at some point in time. be a little more reasonable.

gah I hate when this stuff happens. anywho a law abiding citizen having their gun taken away from a criminal is a crime. you cant stop crimes from happening yes I admit it.

accidental deaths. trying to stop those are like taking knives away from law abiding citizens because they might cut themselves and become infected. If they were not so poorly trained with these weapons those "accidents" which are purely the result of stupidity or intoxication. If you treat your weapon with the respect it deserves then you will find that far less of those accidents occur..

 

I should be revising so I'll stick to this first bit.

Yes that was exactly my point, that's why I had law abiding in quotation marks. Your side has argued that taking guns from law abiding people solves nothing, but what you fail to realise is that every one of these murderers was at one point a law abiding citizen, hell at one point even Bin Laden Hitler and Jack the Ripper would have been law abiding citizens. But there's no guarantee that people will stay law abiding and if they suddenly decide not to follow these laws and have a readily available efficient killing machine to hand surely that's a bad thing?

 

Your second point is a very poor one. Accidental gun deaths are one of the top 10 accidental causes of death in the US, accidental knife deaths aren't. There are even papers published on this.

Yes you can have accidents with anything and yes any accident can lead to a death, but you're far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than a rock or knife or even a baseball bat. Why wouldn't you try and stop them wherever possible? 


Feed me and I'll be your friend forever, steal my treats and I make you into meats.

 

I'm big and I'm bad, so try not to make me mad. xD

 

http://thepunchlinei.../2010-10-18.jpg

 

 

QT with yours truly

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/

 

Number 2

http://onemangaforum...ime-with-nmaan/


#11 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,618 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:14 AM

I should be revising so I'll stick to this first bit.

Yes that was exactly my point, that's why I had law abiding in quotation marks. Your side has argued that taking guns from law abiding people solves nothing, but what you fail to realise is that every one of these murderers was at one point a law abiding citizen, hell at one point even Bin Laden Hitler and Jack the Ripper would have been law abiding citizens. But there's no guarantee that people will stay law abiding and if they suddenly decide not to follow these laws and have a readily available efficient killing machine to hand surely that's a bad thing?

 You cannot guarantee that people will be good so they should all be monitored 24/7 then? would that be better? Sorry but I guess I may be seen as a bit selfish but I am not going to give up my right to a gun, just so that others can have a false sense of security. My losing my gun wont change much. and saying that because I could become a criminal is ridiculous as an argument. why not just lock us all up and be done with it.

Your second point is a very poor one. Accidental gun deaths are one of the top 10 accidental causes of death in the US, accidental knife deaths aren't. There are even papers published on this.

..........you missed my entire point there. I didnt say knife deaths I said cuts that could get infected. you are trying to make the government baby us because we arent well enough suited for the weapons in your opinion. Well if that is the case its better to get better training. This has been something I have been saying since the beginning.

Yes you can have accidents with anything and yes any accident can lead to a death, but you're far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than a rock or knife or even a baseball bat. Why wouldn't you try and stop them wherever possible? 

how about some regulation on the types of guns that kill people the most and not the alltogether ban on all of the rifles and shotguns that hunters use, instead put restrictions on them and maybe some mental health tests. your way is just making me feel that you think all humans are children who cant handle a weapon. If so its a wonder the military hasn't all killed themselves by accident.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#12 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:04 AM

Since a large portion of the anti gun ban argument revolves around the need to have guns as a protective measure let me pose a hypothetical situation.


Your President address the nation declaring that every criminal in the US has had their guns taken from them, their chains of supply are broken, now the only people left with guns are regular folk, gun store owners, military and police personnel. Your President then asks for everyone still in possession of a gun to give it up, calling for a ban on guns, stating that in his/her vision only the military and very select members of the police force would be able to carry guns.


In this instance would you give up your guns or would you still be against the ban?


Hehehe you're hypothetical makes no sense at all though. If you were to somehow magically taken away all of the guns from every criminal in the US, you would've also taken away by far the biggest reason to even have a gun ban in the first place which is the criminal element itself. Nevermind that though because you're still missing a very obvious and very crucial point, that being that people who own guns for protection don't own them to protect against criminals with guns, they own them to protect against criminals period. You seem to have the idea that if criminals no longer have guns they'll just stop committing crimes which I think most people will recognize as being ridiculous; you also seem to be of the mindset that the all criminals in the US own some kind of firearm and use them to commit their crimes. The majority of violent crimes in the US do not occur at gun point, so even without guns robberies on the street, home burglaries, kidnapping, aggravated assault, forcible rape and other sexual assualts will still occur like normal and these are the type of things that people are looking to protect themselves from. Criminals don't commit crimes because they have guns, they do it because they're selfish, morally reprehensible monsters or because they're so extremely desperate that they feel they have no choice, neither of those things change if a firearm isn't available which is why violent crime without a firearm is actually the norm. I know far too many of my friends that have been attacked and attempted to be raped or robbed and some that have actually had both happen to them and AFAIK a gun wasn't involved in any of those cases...granted I've lost close friends to gun related crime as well so I'm not exactly a fan of firearms either but I do understand why people would want to protect themselves with one and I own one myself. Though I've already talked about my feeling on defensive gun use quite a bit in my previous posts
 

http://onemangaforum...art-2/?p=137448
http://onemangaforum...art-2/?p=144071


...which thanks to M1hawk I can no longer link directly to since that thread was archived but it was on pages 10 and 14 of the last thread.

The hunting thing doesn't really concern me, most people that live out in the country or somewhere way off where violent crimes are very rare since most gun related crime is heavily centered on major urban areas like the worst parts of New York, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Baltimore, etc.


  • inzaratha likes this


2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#13 m1hawkgsm

m1hawkgsm

    Forum Mathematiquè & Reduntarian

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • LocationLand of Hobos and Ken

Posted 28 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

:/ wut?

I just copied and pasted the OT from THE first thread.  Doesn't hurt to know this is the first and most active OMF debate thread too, ya know :P


  • Petite Fleur, disastrousmaster and Zeando like this

D9wwdJt.jpg


#14 inzaratha

inzaratha

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:51 PM

A huge part of the number of gun deaths are gang on gang violence.      The vast majority of gun deaths in Arizona are gang on gang over drug trades.      You don't need to do anything about the guns,  - in fact passing laws against them would create yet Another black market for the gangs to run.     You eliminate the drug problem perhaps by legalization and heavy control and taxation of it  ( to pay for the control of said market ) and you eliminate most gun deaths without having to take away any guns from law abiding citiizens.   Just saying. 

 

Of course that may and here I say may increase the number of regular bulgaries and robberies as there are some elements of society that would prefer to make their money doing anything illegal rather than something legal and the loss of their drug sale money they will just make up by stealing other things cause that is just the way criminals are....

 

Frankly the only reason I care about criminals taking other criminals out is not for them at all ( like good ridiance ) it's because inevitably innocent people get caught in between their gang wars and killed - people who had nothing to do with it and were just in the wrong place wrong time,  of course one shouldn't go in a gang neighborhood at night but you never know maybe they ran out of gas and wound up getting killed at a gas station while gang members were marking their territory.   happens all the time. 


Edited by inzaratha, 28 April 2013 - 01:57 PM.


#15 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,618 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 28 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

I just copied and pasted the OT from THE first thread.  Doesn't hurt to know this is the first and most active OMF debate thread too, ya know :P

oh wow for a second I thought you actually were about to throw lava down on my post. well played good sir. I was pulling up links and everything.

 

A huge part of the number of gun deaths are gang on gang violence.      The vast majority of gun deaths in Arizona are gang on gang over drug trades.      You don't need to do anything about the guns,  - in fact passing laws against them would create yet Another black market for the gangs to run.     You eliminate the drug problem perhaps by legalization and heavy control and taxation of it  ( to pay for the control of said market ) and you eliminate most gun deaths without having to take away any guns from law abiding citiizens.   Just saying. 

 

Of course that may and here I say may increase the number of regular bulgaries and robberies as there are some elements of society that would prefer to make their money doing anything illegal rather than something legal and the loss of their drug sale money they will just make up by stealing other things cause that is just the way criminals are....

 

Frankly the only reason I care about criminals taking other criminals out is not for them at all ( like good ridiance ) it's because inevitably innocent people get caught in between their gang wars and killed - people who had nothing to do with it and were just in the wrong place wrong time,  of course one shouldn't go in a gang neighborhood at night but you never know maybe they ran out of gas and wound up getting killed at a gas station while gang members were marking their territory.   happens all the time. 

:/ better police force needed is all I have to say about that. root out the gangs end quite a bit of the gun violence.


  • m1hawkgsm and Zeando like this

                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#16 inzaratha

inzaratha

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 28 April 2013 - 03:16 PM

Police force increase would help especially if they go under cover and really find them, they are running drugs back and forth across the border and our state on a daily basis.   The police find cars with their baseboards full of drugs all the time, with like a lot of drugs in them. 


  • disastrousmaster likes this

#17 inzaratha

inzaratha

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:17 PM

2 separate stabbing sprees today.  -

 

http://www.azfamily....-205131221.html

this occurred while people were gathered to mourn a death  -   this is not too far from where I work,  well where I work is a worse area ...

 

http://usnews.nbcnew...ico-church?lite

and this one at a church 



#18 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,917 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:18 PM

2 separate stabbing sprees today.  -
 
http://www.azfamily....-205131221.html
this occurred while people were gathered to mourn a death  -   this is not too far from where I work,  well where I work is a worse area ...
 
http://usnews.nbcnew...ico-church?lite
and this one at a church

 
As terrible as that is, what does this have to do with gun control, gun violence, or mass shootings? it's a good thing neither of these people had a gun. In the first article, it took 5 kids to stab two adults. Plus the two kids that they were chasing initially actually was able to get away. In the other story, there were injuries but no one died. Could you imagine if those 5 kids or that 1 one guy had a gun? The deaths would have far higher. Those two kids would have certainly died. And there would be a lot of dead parishioners. So yeah, you can commit violence with weapons other than guns. But not at the scale and with the ease that you can with a gun.


* Correction, of premise.

Edited by DarkNemesis, 30 April 2013 - 02:23 AM.

  • waleuska and Zeando like this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#19 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,618 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:54 PM

As terrible as that is, what does this have to do with gun control, gun violence, or mass shootings? In the first article, it took 5 kids to stab two adults. Plus the two kids that they were chasing initially actually was able to get away. In the other story, there were injuries but no one died. Could you imagine if those 5 kids or that 1 one guy had a gun? The deaths would have far higher. Those two kids would have certainly died. And there would be a lot of dead parishioners. So yeah, you can commit violence with weapons other than guns. But not at the scale and with the ease that you can with a gun.

last I checked this was a weapons control debate. Witnesses described the weapon as some type of long metal crowbar-like rod. Police have not confirmed the weapon. The suspects were able to flee the scene without being detained. there was no knife. No identifiable weapon made for merely killing. This was a crowbar or something like that. Not made to kill. The 2 men were probably the only victims because they were the only ones whom tried to detain them. Of course they are going to fight back. But this makes it seem like The one whom killed the 2 men was only 1 of the five. Unless they all had these crowbar type devices upon them, which I doubt. Had the kid had a gun, it would have probably ended with one of the teenagers of the group of three being shot possibly fatally, but the likelyhood of 1 of these kids killing all of them with a gun is pretty low, he would have to have good aim, If he was using a rifle he would have been more bulky and awkward, and if he was using a pistol, honestly after about 25 yards the kids would probably have been safer, had he been using the bulky and awkward rifle, as a kid it would probably be harder for him to accurately aim with said rifle, due to usually using said rifle, and not likely having it firmly in his shoulder pocket. Lacking a good form or lacking having said rifle in his shoulder pocket he would have been more likely to miss and also more likely to inflict self harm than not. Your argument is invalid to one whom knows how to properly use these weapons. Unless this kid had said training he would not be much of a threat.



second one was a kid using a shank like device that was neither knife nor gun had he been using a gun he would have been spotted far earlier and would have probably caused the same amount of damage but probably less. due to the fact that he was immediately set upon by parishioners. he may have killed his intended target, but it is unlikely due to the fact that he was moving and which makes accuracy incredibly difficult. >_> how the ones whom dont know about these weapons talk of them confounds me.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

#20 Zeando

Zeando

    Samurai

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,473 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 09:42 AM


Hurray, for Domestic Terrorism. Christ Al-*******-mighty. When is this type of shit going to end? First the Abortion Killer and now this. We certainly don't need a rash of this going on as well.
 
My condolences to the families affected by this.
 
And I'll use this hashtag since it's one of the few times that it's actually appropriate, especially in this context: #AllLivesMatter

as someone not living into USA, i always find it curious how it appears to be easy there for citizens to get access to military level weapons (i'm counting assault rifles as military weapons)


  • DarkNemesis likes this

FQZQm2p.png
Forum Mafia Games

Spoiler The 4 ways of Discussion




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users