ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: Bhootnike on August 06, 2012, 09:53:15 pm
-
I don't really say much regarding the recent shootings as such, except for that I think its stupid and US should ban guns.
But today this issue has hit me on a personal level due to the shooting in a Sikh Temple in the US, killing a few people and injuring more.
What are your thoughts on the legal status of guns in USA.
Should firearms be banned ?
-
The shooting in the USA on innocent Sikhs, is really really unfortunate and in my eyes a testament of the consequences of gun culture in USA.
Whilst it is idealistic to propose that they should be banned, this should be the case.
-
Ban them. Nowadays, guns are for GTA, not real life.
-
Yes. They should be banned.
-
People who open fire on innocent civilians must surely be messed up in the head? BAN THEM GUNS.
And its horrible he chose to go to the Gurudwara where people were praying :(
-
I find the mentality that banning guns amounts to tyranny in this day and age to be quite moronic. I have seen very few reasonable arguments against gun control displayed in debates. I doubt anything's going to change any time soon though - not with the power the NRA currently has in America.
-
That is quite unfortunate to hear, and I am really sorry for the families that lost loved ones. I on a personal level believe that a myriad number of things (e.g. knives, tools, hammers, belts etc.) can be used as weapons against another. Therefore banning guns, although may nadir the amount of injuries and harm caused, however it is not the ultimate solution. There are other ways to tackle such issues, that will not only ban the use of guns, however prevent offenders from using other weapons from committing a serious crime. Maybe it is the law, in terms of a more severe punishment that should be reconsidered; this will deter offenders from re-offending. Moreover, I know of may families who own guns. Not for killing other individuals of course, however for the use of entertainment (hunting). Therefore I solely believe that with a bad intention anything can cause harm, thus no guns should not be banned however an ultimate resolution should be reached such as, more severe punishments enforced.
-
I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..
-
I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..
I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??
-
I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..
I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??
Is the OP suggesting banning all firearms or just stricter gun controls, though? I think the latter makes a lot of sense.
-
That is quite unfortunate to hear, and I am really sorry for the families that lost loved ones. I on a personal level believe that a myriad number of things (e.g. knives, tools, hammers, belts etc.) can be used as weapons against another. Therefore banning guns, although may nadir the amount of injuries and harm caused, however it is not the ultimate solution. There are other ways to tackle such issues, that will not only ban the use of guns, however prevent offenders from using other weapons from committing a serious crime. Maybe it is the law, in terms of a more severe punishment that should be reconsidered; this will deter offenders from re-offending. Moreover, I know of may families who own guns. Not for killing other individuals of course, however for the use of entertainment (hunting). Therefore I solely believe that with a bad intention anything can cause harm, thus no guns should not be banned however an ultimate resolution should be reached such as, more severe punishments enforced.
The difference is that murderers can use guns to kill far more quickly and effectively than the potential weapons that you have listed. Imagine someone trying to carry out the Virginia Tech shootings with a belt or a hammer.
I agree that the cause needs to be addressed here, but that doesn't mean guns aren't relevant to the debate. If there's a medium which easily facilitates the problem at hand, to an extent wherein the problem would be much more containable without said medium, then it is worth discussing the medium's merits.
Also worth pointing out - guns are banned normally in Australia too, but you can still sometimes own them for purposes such as sport. In the US, in contrast, anybody of legal age can own one basically.
-
Are you advocating a blanket ban on all firearms? Because that's not particularly reasonable, but I assume that what you mean is more stringent application processes and requirements and restrictions?
On a purely practical level it won't happen, removing an amendment is almost impossible
-
The difference is that murderers can use guns to kill far more quickly and effectively than the potential weapons that you have listed. Imagine someone trying to carry out the Virginia Tech shootings with a belt or a hammer.
^ This.
-
That is quite unfortunate to hear, and I am really sorry for the families that lost loved ones. I on a personal level believe that a myriad number of things (e.g. knives, tools, hammers, belts etc.) can be used as weapons against another. Therefore banning guns, although may nadir the amount of injuries and harm caused, however it is not the ultimate solution. There are other ways to tackle such issues, that will not only ban the use of guns, however prevent offenders from using other weapons from committing a serious crime. Maybe it is the law, in terms of a more severe punishment that should be reconsidered; this will deter offenders from re-offending. Moreover, I know of may families who own guns. Not for killing other individuals of course, however for the use of entertainment (hunting). Therefore I solely believe that with a bad intention anything can cause harm, thus no guns should not be banned however an ultimate resolution should be reached such as, more severe punishments enforced.
The difference is that murderers can use guns to kill far more quickly and effectively than the potential weapons that you have listed. Imagine someone trying to carry out the Virginia Tech shootings with a belt or a hammer.
I agree that the cause needs to be addressed here, but that doesn't mean guns aren't relevant to the debate. If there's a medium which easily facilitates the problem at hand, to an extent wherein the problem would be much more containable without said medium, then it is worth discussing the medium's merits.
Also worth pointing out - guns are banned normally in Australia too, but you can still sometimes own them for purposes such as sport. In the US, in contrast, anybody of legal age can own one basically.
Oh, that makes sense! I agree with this I guess, I just don't think they should be fully banned. And, yeah perhaps the ones I listed were less extreme than a gun :-\
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Outlawing guns isn't going to put an end to the blood shed by innocent people or the people dying in vain. It's simply going to lead to a larger black market for guns or result in people using other weapons.
Take the gun laws in Switzerland (I think it is..) for example. Every adult is given a firearm and instructed on how to use it etc. Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates in regards to firearms.
-
I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..
I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??
Well, in terms of punishment, the offenders usually end up being shot and sometimes, like today, being killed...
or they kill themselves. - based on the news we've seen in the past few years about the shootings in the US
One problem with guns is that its an ongoing issue in the USA because there'll be some nutcase who will go on a killing spree massacre. from schools, colleges, villages, and now places of worship.
I don't think guns should be banned altogether, no. I mean, they should employ something like Australia.
Also I think there needs to be more awareness about Sikhs in general, not just USA, even here.
Sikhs with turbans and beards are often mistaken as muslims, and especially after 9/11, sikhs have been targeted.
But still, i dont think innocent people, including muslims who may be still targeted for 'revenge', should be slain.
All they need to do is push that trigger and they've badly injured someone. as evangelionzeta pointed out . sadly the fact is that is that its a more effective way of killing a large quantity of people.
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
-
That's because the swiss have a civilian militia not an army, so everyone gets a gun. They also have incredibly strict ammo control laws
-
I'm in the stricter control camp where firearm usage is limited to home invasion defense or sporting purposes.
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
A knife, being less lethal, may used a bit more liberally than a gun but you know, stuff
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.
-
I think it's just the fact that guns have more damage than other weapons really..
I agree! I am suggesting an ultimate solution. I don't think it is very logic and smart to be banning every single threat we are exposed to. Why not increase the punishment/ sentence, something that will punish the offenders rather than those who DO follow the law??
Well, in terms of punishment, the offenders usually end up being shot and sometimes, like today, being killed...
or they kill themselves. - based on the news we've seen in the past few years about the shootings in the US
One problem with guns is that its an ongoing issue in the USA because there'll be some nutcase who will go on a killing spree massacre. from schools, colleges, villages, and now places of worship.
I don't think guns should be banned altogether, no. I mean, they should employ something like Australia.
Also I think there needs to be more awareness about Sikhs in general, not just USA, even here.
Sikhs with turbans and beards are often mistaken as muslims, and especially after 9/11, sikhs have been targeted.
But still, i dont think innocent people, including muslims who may be still targeted for 'revenge', should be slain.
All they need to do is push that trigger and they've badly injured someone. as evangelionzeta pointed out . sadly the fact is that is that its a more effective way of killing a large quantity of people.
I don't think it should be about what race, and revenge honestly is no such reason!!! That's just as pathetic as doing the crime first hand??? Not any better. NO race or culture should be targeted, whether its is Islam or Hindu. (I know you stated, that already but I just felt the need to put it out again)
-
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?
That's because the swiss have a civilian militia not an army, so everyone gets a gun. They also have incredibly strict ammo control laws
That is true. I still think it is a good example of how firearms can be widespread and cause not nearly as much trouble as places like the US.
-
Outlawing guns isn't going to put an end to the blood shed by innocent people or the people dying in vain. It's simply going to lead to a larger black market for guns or result in people using other weapons.
Take the gun laws in Switzerland (I think it is..) for example. Every adult is given a firearm and instructed on how to use it etc. Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates in regards to firearms.
A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree. The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns. If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).
A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.
-
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?
Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Outlawing guns isn't going to put an end to the blood shed by innocent people or the people dying in vain. It's simply going to lead to a larger black market for guns or result in people using other weapons.
Take the gun laws in Switzerland (I think it is..) for example. Every adult is given a firearm and instructed on how to use it etc. Switzerland has one of the worlds lowest crime rates in regards to firearms.
But if they ban the general use of guns, and make it like australia in that you need a license and registration (think you do anyways!), it will mean potentially less psychos going on killing rampages.
btw did a google search:
On 28 April 1996, Martin Bryant went on a killing spree at Port Arthur, murdering 35 people and wounding 21 more before being captured by the Special Operations Group of the Tasmania Police. This led to a national ban on semi-automatic shotguns and rifles.
Australia took drastic measures against it, and we haven't had THAT many killing sprees...
actually apart from the monash university shootings, i cant recall any shooting sprees.
but yeah..
whats the harm in making them more stricter on obtaining a gun, and licensing them etc etc.
or what brenden said: Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.
There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???
My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!
-
Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!
-
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?
Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.
I think you're missing the point. If I magically emerged out of your computer screen right now and had you cornered, completely at my mercy, and gave you the option of being shot to death, hacked to death with a machete, stabbed to death with a knife, bludgeoned to death with a hammer or crow bar, butchered with a chainsaw, which would you choose?
P.S- I would never do that, I love you and your witty sense of humour.
A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree. The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns. If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).
A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.
The black market is hard to access? Spend enough time in a few particular restaurants/cafes in Carlton and I guarantee you'll be offered many things that are heavily illegal. That's just here in Australia.. I would assume the black market in America could be much more accessible/prominent.
This debate is practically redundant. As Russ said, the amendment will be practically impossible to remove. It will be a cold day in hell before they US citizens agree to have it removed. As you said, it's cultural to own a gun in the US.
-
Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!
I am NOT for it. However my only concern is that many people do follow the law and enjoy hunting! Thousands of people hunt and use the weapon rightfully. Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher agrees to allow you to have free time but becasue of a group of idiots she refuses to allow you free time as a class and thus you are forced to do silent reading. The point is in every situation no matter if it is a classroom or outside, there will be a group of individuals who will not obey the rules and laws, why should those who follow it be punished. To you, maybe, hunting is not a good enough of a reasons, but for many people who do enjoy it believe me it is. Personally I believe that nothing beats the reason that, "everyone should not be punished, over one persons wrong doing:"!
-
Before we talk about whether to ban guns or not, can someone even come up with a reasonable defence as to why we should allow guns, and don't mention self-defence because we all know that rarely happens!
How do you know that it rarely happens? For all we know, the suspicion that a victim (or his/her home) is armed may act as a deterrent for criminals and thus a crime isn't committed
-
Surgeon, your logic is spurious at best. A bullet wound in an artery can leave you bleeding out for a long time which is also a highly painful death.
Even if you can make the objective claim that being shot to death is more painless than a machete, it does nothing to rebut the argument that guns can kill a much greater volume of people more easily, which is the real reason why guns should be outlawed.
Yes, people kill people, not guns. But guns make it a helluva lot easier, and given that 300 gun homocides have now occurred in the US since the Colorado shooting, it's pretty obvious that the lack of gun control laws in America is simply stupid.
-
Just putting it out there, I'd rather be shot and killed than hacked to death with a machete or stabbed to death with a knife.
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
Assuming the criminal says "Hello, I have a knife prepare to outrun me" instead of politely asking for the time and chucking it into your liver.
I think guns should be banned. Probs to the extent of Australia. Like, really, it's not like a gun is a necessary tool for everyday living. It's no microwave. It's use it to kill shit. So why not take something away that is used to kill shit lol.
There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???
My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!
Two responses:
Firstly, cars aren't absolutely necessary, yes, but the good that they do (presumably?) outweighs the bad. Convenience aside, cars have a lot of social utility (meaning we can travel large distances for work and services, can ship goods across large distances, etc.). They aren't necessary, but the good seems to outweigh the bad,
With guns, the supposed good (defense) seems negligible compared to the numerous shootings that occur. If you want to weigh up the costs versus the benefits, simply count the number of lives saved versus the number of lives destroyed by guns. Thus we can argue for a ban on guns. The precedent for this also lies in the general law; we ban things which create an unreasonable amount of harm/danger to society (or so the theory goes), and disapprove of that which does more harm than good.
The other thing is that your model of addressing cultural concerns isn't mutually exclusive from a gun ban. Just saying.
-
GOD INVENTED GUNS SO WE COULD KILL THE QUEEROSEXUALS
-
FOR THOSE THAT ARE HUMOURLESS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZaCiP2_2RM
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Two responses:
Firstly, cars aren't absolutely necessary, yes, but the good that they do (presumably?) outweighs the bad. Convenience aside, cars have a lot of social utility (meaning we can travel large distances for work and services, can ship goods across large distances, etc.). They aren't necessary, but the good seems to outweigh the bad,
With guns, the supposed good (defense) seems negligible compared to the numerous shootings that occur. If you want to weigh up the costs versus the benefits, simply count the number of lives saved versus the number of lives destroyed by guns. Thus we can argue for a ban on guns. The precedent for this also lies in the general law; we ban things which create an unreasonable amount of harm/danger to society (or so the theory goes), and disapprove of that which does more harm than good.
The other thing is that your model of addressing cultural concerns isn't mutually exclusive from a gun ban. Just saying.
Different opinions I guess! I don't believe it should be about "good dominating the bad". The argument was that guns can kill, if you google, you would find cars kill an extensively more amount of innocent individuals per year, despite the good things they may contribute. Do the good things make up for all the lost lives, and families that may suffer (just asking). The point= Argument was that guns kill, so do cars. It wasn't about what good they contribute?
Its unreasonable to banned cars, as many people follow law. Just like that many people follow the law concerning firearms and guns, than it is also unreasonably to ban!
-
Surgeon, your logic is spurious at best. A bullet wound in an artery can leave you bleeding out for a long time which is also a highly painful death.
Even if you can make the objective claim that being shot to death is more painless than a machete, it does nothing to rebut the argument that guns can kill a much greater volume of people more easily, which is the real reason why guns should be outlawed.
Yes, people kill people not guns. But guns make it a helluva lot easier, and given that 300 homocides have now occurred in the time since the Colorado shooting, it's pretty obvious that the lack of gun control laws in America is simply stupid.
As spurious as it may be, I would take the risk of being shot in an artery as opposed to being attacked in another savage form. The likelihood of being shot in an artery and bleeding out to death over a long period of time is quite small, especially if the person doing the shooting is aiming to kill you.
I'm not refuting the claims being made in here that guns can kill a large number of people in a small amount of time, I whole heartedly agree with that.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what laws come into action pertaining to gun or ammunition laws, people will still have access to them. If a university student can purchase 20 thousand dollars worth of ammunition, weapons and ballistic gear without turning a head in America, I'm fairly certain people would have access to similar things through illegal means.
I'm simply taking a practical viewpoint on the issue at hand.
All in all:
Should guns be outlawed for civilians? Yes.
Will they be? No.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
As spurious as it may be, I would take the risk of being shot in an artery as opposed to being attacked in another savage form. The likelihood of being shot in an artery and bleeding out to death over a long period of time is quite small, especially if the person doing the shooting is aiming to kill you.
I'm not refuting the claims being made in here that guns can kill a large number of people in a small amount of time, I whole heartedly agree with that.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what laws come into action pertaining to gun or ammunition laws, people will still have access to them. If a university student can purchase 20 thousand dollars worth of ammunition, weapons and ballistic gear without turning a head in America, I'm fairly certain people would have access to similar things through illegal means.
I'm simply taking a practical viewpoint on the issue at hand.
Then why don't shootings happen all the time in Australia?
-
Much easier to out-run a knife-wielding person than a gunman
Also easier to fight back against a knife-wielder than a gunman
What is this person happens to be faster and stronger than you?
Then you're even more screwed if they own a gun.
I think you're missing the point. If I magically emerged out of your computer screen right now and had you cornered, completely at my mercy, and gave you the option of being shot to death, hacked to death with a machete, stabbed to death with a knife, bludgeoned to death with a hammer or crow bar, butchered with a chainsaw, which would you choose?
P.S- I would never do that, I love you and your witty sense of humour.
A black market is hard to access for the nut jobs who often do public shootings. A model wherein gun control is much more stringent isn't likely to eliminate gang violence or anything, yes, but it is likely to make it much more difficult for a disturbed person to go on a killing spree. The other thing worth pointing out is that a black market only arrives with demand; currently, it is cultural to own a gun, because it is an amendment of the constitution, and because people feel the need to defend themselves in a culture where other people can own guns. If this culture of necessary defense (on a mass scale) is destroyed, then a lot of the impetus for the black market is reduced (and thus you can imagine a black market is not nearly as likely to exist; even if it does, it won't be on a very significant scale).
A model from Switzerland or whatever isn't pertinent to the debate; the question, rather, is whether or not a country where disturbed people can cause mass death (ie. clearly not Switzerland, it seems) should have firearms readily available to its citizens. Your example establishes that guns aren't a cause, yes, but it doesn't demonstrate that guns aren't a useful (and often necessary) tool for extremely violent crime.
The black market is hard to access? Spend enough time in a few particular restaurants/cafes in Carlton and I guarantee you'll be offered many things that are heavily illegal. That's just here in Australia.. I would assume the black market in America could be much more accessible/prominent.
This debate is practically redundant. As Russ said, the amendment will be practically impossible to remove. It will be a cold day in hell before they US citizens agree to have it removed. As you said, it's cultural to own a gun in the US.
Enwiabe basically addressed the first point (although thanks :p).
Your response to my black market point doesn't account for my analysis of how a black market even erupts (ie. demand). Even if it does erupt, your point about Carlton doesn't necessarily work - first of all, I imagine a lot of citizens don't know about these places, even if you do, and chances are a loner who spends all of their time scaring people with their antisocial behavior (just do a profile check on some of the shooters) isn't likely to develop the social connections to find these sorts of places.
Finally, also assuming the "even if" that there is a black market, it is much harder to access illegal merchants than it is legal ones, and so we can surmise that at least some people willbe put off. And any reduction in gun profilerstion amongst loonies is worth it here, compared to what we are losing (er...self defense?).
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Then why don't shootings happen all the time in Australia?
Let's first look at the difference in populations... ~ 314 million compared to ~ 22.5 million.
I would say that there probably is close to one shooting in Australia for every ~13 shootings in America which would make us roughly equal.
The inherent different in average shootings we hear about, i.e Colorado shootings compared to a single person being killed here, I don't know. I can't answer that.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Different opinions I guess! I don't believe it should be about "good dominating the bad". The argument was that guns can kill, if you google, you would find cars kill an extensively more amount of innocent individuals per year, despite the good things they may contribute. Do the good things make up for all the lost lives, and families that may suffer (just asking). The point= Argument was that guns kill, so do cars. It wasn't about what good they contribute?
Its unreasonable to banned cars, as many people follow law. Just like that many people follow the law concerning firearms and guns, than it is also unreasonably to ban!
Hence why I said arguably. That said, you could say cars also save as many lives as they kill because you can only have easy access to food, ambulances, daily supplies etc. because of cars. Or maybe the good things do matter more than the lives (if you want to be hardcore utilitarian, the good results of cars affect almost everybody, whilst the deaths only a tragic but small minority). I think with guns though, the arguments clearly demonstrate that there is much more harm than good.
And yeah, also will say that this debate is purely theoretical given that America won't lose it's guns for a long time. Still, it's a theoretically interesting debate.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Let's first look at the difference in populations... ~ 314 million compared to ~ 22.5 million.
I would say that there probably is close to one shooting in Australia for every ~13 shootings in America which would make us roughly equal.
The inherent different in average shootings we hear about, i.e Colorado shootings compared to a single person being killed here, I don't know. I can't answer that.
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?
United states has a gun homicide rate of 4.14 per 100,000 citizens
Australia has a gun homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000 citizens.
In fact for every 1 gun homicide in Australia, it's 130 in America. 130:1.
think about that for a second.
and now realise why you're wrong. so horribly, horribly wrong.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Hence why I said arguably. That said, you could say cars also save as many lives as they kill because you can only have easy access to food, ambulances, daily supplies etc. because of cars. Or maybe the good things do matter more than the lives (if you want to be hardcore utilitarian, the good results of cars affect almost everybody, whilst the deaths only a tragic but small minority). I think with guns though, the arguments clearly demonstrate that there is much more harm than good.
And yeah, also will say that this debate is purely theoretical given that America won't lose it's guns for a long time. Still, it's a theoretically interesting debate.
Lol, true good point ummmmm. I guess your right in a way :-[ But I still believe to an extent, so not everyone is forced to give up their hobbies, becasue of stupid and immature idiots, who don't follow law and have no sense of remorse.
-
sabii, gun sport is legal in Australia! I have a mate who goes down to the shooting range every week. But you cannot simply own a gun for no reason at all like you can in America, and the stringent safety checks and regulations keep our gun crime at an extremely low rate.
-
am tempted to go through this thread and delete all the super-long nested quotes...
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?
United states has a gun homicide rate of 4.14 per 100,000 citizens
Australia has a gun homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000 citizens.
In fact for every 1 gun homicide in Australia, it's 130 in America. 130:1.
think about that for a second.
and now realise why you're wrong. so horribly, horribly wrong.
Okay I agree that the fact may be a little fishy or misleading, however there is no such real reason to be using such offensive language against him/her. They are expressing their opinion, like you. You are not necessarily right and nor am I and nor I they. We are all trying to express our opinion, just because you might doubt their source that gives no one any right to verbally start abusing them!!!!
Lets show some maturity and respect each others views and opinion, even if they do differ.
-
sabii, I called the statement dumb. I think ignorance - especially wilful ignorance - ought to be shamed at every turn. He didn't provide a source, he simply said "well I'd estimate that the ratio is 13:1". Based off of what evidence? What possible reason could he have to appoint himself knowledgeable about the ratio of gun crime in the United States to Australia, and simply make up a number? The words to express that sort of ignorance can only be harsh.
That wasn't an opinion, it was a blatant lie.
-
sabii, gun sport is legal in Australia! I have a mate who goes down to the shooting range every week. But you cannot simply own a gun for no reason at all like you can in America, and the stringent safety checks and regulations keep our gun crime at an extremely low rate.
I was not aware of that, and thank you for letting me know :)
-
am tempted to go through this thread and delete all the super-long nested quotes...
Sorry about that Nina, would have cleaned them up in my posts but typing from my iPad! :(
-
sabii, I called the statement dumb. I think ignorance - especially wilful ignorance - ought to be shamed at every turn.
That wasn't an opinion, it was a blatant lie.
I understand, but maybe he or she may interpret it differently than you and I?
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?
United states has a gun homicide rate of 4.14 per 100,000 citizens
Australia has a gun homicide rate of 0.44 per 100,000 citizens.
In fact for every 1 gun homicide in Australia, it's 130 in America. 130:1.
think about that for a second.
and now realise why you're wrong. so horribly, horribly wrong.
Okay, I stand corrected. Didn't research the facts as I'm trying to partake in this discussion while studying. In my defence, I never stated what I said were concrete facts. I said "probably".. Pivotal word.
-
sabii, I called the statement dumb. I think ignorance - especially wilful ignorance - ought to be shamed at every turn.
That wasn't an opinion, it was a blatant lie.
I understand, but maybe he or she may interpret it differently than you and I?
This wasn't about an interpretation. He literally just made up the number to suit his argument.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Okay, I stand corrected. Didn't research the facts as I'm trying to partake in this discussion while studying. In my defence, I never stated what I said were concrete facts. I said "probably".. Pivotal word.
Probably means you have a high degree of certainty. You still made up the number, so you were still lying when you said "probably", because you had no way of knowing the degree of probability to which your statement was true. Just admit you were caught making up numbers to bolster your argument and learn a lesson in humility.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
This wasn't about an interpretation. He literally just made up the number to suit his argument.
Probably did but the whole "pull out of your ass", there are other ways to declare the same message? BUt if that's what you think okay than, I dont want to argue or start any sort of debate over this.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Probably means you have a high degree of certainty. You still made up the number, so you were still lying when you said "probably", because you had no way of knowing the degree of probability to which your statement was true. Just admit you were caught making up numbers to bolster your argument and learn a lesson in humility.
Alright, thanks for telling me the meaning of the word "probably". I already told you that I stand corrected and that I didn't research the facts. Is that not enough? Can we please drop this now? If I'm not mistaken, it's against your forum rules to post irrelevant comments in threads, these should be taken to PM, and if I'm not mistaken, this thread is about whether or not America should or should not ban guns.
-
Sorry about that Nina, would have cleaned them up in my posts but typing from my iPad! :(
Q: How do you know someone's an Apple owner...?
A: They will tell you!
<3
Anyway
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
-
I am NOT for it. However my only concern is that many people do follow the law and enjoy hunting! Thousands of people hunt and use the weapon rightfully. Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher agrees to allow you to have free time but becasue of a group of idiots she refuses to allow you free time as a class and thus you are forced to do silent reading. The point is in every situation no matter if it is a classroom or outside, there will be a group of individuals who will not obey the rules and laws, why should those who follow it be punished. To you, maybe, hunting is not a good enough of a reasons, but for many people who do enjoy it believe me it is. Personally I believe that nothing beats the reason that, "everyone should not be punished, over one persons wrong doing:"!
Sabii, like in Australia, the US could employ some law where you get a license do that.
and also if they want to enjoy their hobbies, they could enforce laws in the US and those people who hunt and stuff could get a license.
There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???
My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!
The point is, we dont hear about it when people do the right thing.
We hear about when people misuse them, and go on killing sprees and stuff.
Let's be pessimistic for a second..!
A day will come when something terrible will happen. This has been the case with:
Limited airport security ---- > 9/11
Guns in australia ----- > port arthur massacre
guns in US ---> TBC
Looking at the recent events in the past few years, and knowing how the USA is always under constant threat, a pessimist would think that something bad is going to happen.
Only then they'll think, o yeah, maybe guns wasnt a good idea..
I hope nothing like this ever happens,
and one measure the US could take is to enforce stricter laws on guns, if not ban them.
The good reasons, whatever they are, can easily be dealt with. iT could be such that if you get a license, you are permitted to use a gun.
-
sabii, I called the statement dumb. I think ignorance - especially wilful ignorance - ought to be shamed at every turn.
That wasn't an opinion, it was a blatant lie.
I understand, but maybe he or she may interpret it differently than you and I?
This wasn't about an interpretation. He literally just made up the number to suit his argument.
Probably did but the whole "pull out of your ass", there are other ways to declare the same message? BUt if that's what you think okay than, I dont want to argue or start any sort of debate over this.
I think you're making a good point, that in reasoned discussion, civility had ought to be maintained. I'm with you on that. The problem is that reasoned discussion relies on both parties adhering to doing their best to stay within the facts, and not inventing lies to further their case. When this happens, the argument becomes meaningless. It boils down to who can come up with the most feasible or effective lie?
For example, imagine that we're debating the existence of gravity. What if I don't know about magnets, and you surreptitiously use one to hold a falling apple (embedded with a ferrous chip) in suspension?
So it's very frustrating when I'm doing the right thing by the argument and approaching it in an honest manner, and he's taking an axe to the entire process and invalidating the entire argument as a waste of time. Hence, I ridicule such statements. Ignorance has no place in reasoned debates, and ought to be shut down at every opportunity.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
Probably means you have a high degree of certainty. You still made up the number, so you were still lying when you said "probably", because you had no way of knowing the degree of probability to which your statement was true. Just admit you were caught making up numbers to bolster your argument and learn a lesson in humility.
Alright, thanks for telling me the meaning of the word "probably". I already told you that I stand corrected and that I didn't research the facts. Is that not enough? Can we please drop this now? If I'm not mistaken, it's against your forum rules to post irrelevant comments in threads, these should be taken to PM, and if I'm not mistaken, this thread is about whether or not America should or should not ban guns.
The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.
-
mod edit: deleted nested quotes
This wasn't about an interpretation. He literally just made up the number to suit his argument.
Probably did but the whole "pull out of your ass", there are other ways to declare the same message? BUt if that's what you think okay than, I dont want to argue or start any sort of debate over this.
The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.
I understand it can be very frustrating! Maybe he did not apprehend and rethink the consequence or the extent to which it will affect others? I don't no. The intention to me, does not seem harmful! Lets just drop the topic. Both of you guys mentioned good points! ;D
Now back to the topic......hehhe
-
I am NOT for it. However my only concern is that many people do follow the law and enjoy hunting! Thousands of people hunt and use the weapon rightfully. Imagine being in a classroom where the teacher agrees to allow you to have free time but becasue of a group of idiots she refuses to allow you free time as a class and thus you are forced to do silent reading. The point is in every situation no matter if it is a classroom or outside, there will be a group of individuals who will not obey the rules and laws, why should those who follow it be punished. To you, maybe, hunting is not a good enough of a reasons, but for many people who do enjoy it believe me it is. Personally I believe that nothing beats the reason that, "everyone should not be punished, over one persons wrong doing:"!
Sabii, like in Australia, the US could employ some law where you get a license do that.
and also if they want to enjoy their hobbies, they could enforce laws in the US and those people who hunt and stuff could get a license.
There are many useless things or 'unnecessary' things that we as humans can survive without, however we still use to use it. E.g. Cars which cause so much pollution. Many accidents occur every year, people break laws by hoon driving and what not. As humans we are not obliged to use the vehicle however it makes our lives much easier, and than yet again, the majority of us do follow the law. In saying this, I don't believe guns or any firearms are any different, if used with bad intentions of breaking law, than OFCOURSE It will be harmful???
My argument isn't to keep it, however to do something else rather than banning it fully!
The point is, we dont hear about it when people do the right thing.
We hear about when people misuse them, and go on killing sprees and stuff.
Let's be pessimistic for a second..!
A day will come when something terrible will happen. This has been the case with:
Limited airport security ---- > 9/11
Guns in australia ----- > port arthur massacre
guns in US ---> TBC
Looking at the recent events in the past few years, and knowing how the USA is always under constant threat, a pessimist would think that something bad is going to happen.
Only then they'll think, o yeah, maybe guns wasnt a good idea..
I hope nothing like this ever happens,
and one measure the US could take is to enforce stricter laws on guns, if not ban them.
The good reasons, whatever they are, can easily be dealt with. iT could be such that if you get a license, you are permitted to use a gun.
Sorry but I think someone already argued that and I have replied and agreed to an extent to some people, e.g. enwibee. I honestly cant be bothered restating my opinion other than declaring, yes the gun can be bad and the laws should outline that of Australias!
-
The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.
Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.
However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.
-
The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.
Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.
However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.
Wow, are you really that desperate to try and score a point? You just won't quit. You really think fact-checking debate points isn't on-topic? Holy crap.
-
The thread is also in "rants and debates", where points of order about the debate process can, and should, be raised when appropriate.
Never knew that making points of order about the debate process was acceptable let alone encouraged in the "rants and debates" sub-forum.
However, does this not directly contradict your rule stating that all posts in a thread should be on-topic? Critiquing my method of "pulling information out of my ass" hardly seems to be a relevant or appropriate answer to whether or not America should ban guns.
Wow, are you really that desperate to try and score a point? You just won't quit. You really think fact-checking debate points isn't on-topic? Holy crap.
It isn't in my nature to quit. Nothing personal, enwibee.
Pointing out incorrect facts and rectifying a fallacious comment made by someone is justified.
Attacking them (when they haven't even said that they are certain about the statistic) and speaking about the connotations of the word "probably" is generally not. Or so I would have thought.
-
It isn't in my nature to quit. Nothing personal, enwibee.
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
Attacking them (when they haven't even said that they are certain about the statistic) and speaking about the connotations of the word "probably" is generally not. Or so I would have thought.
I attacked the statement, not you. You were simply unable to delineate the two.
Being intransigent is nothing to be proud of. It does nothing but make you look like an arrogant fool. I am now pointing out your character flaws, yes, but the original statement did nothing but call your statement dumb and your position ignorant.
-
"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"
Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?
No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.
-
"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"
Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?
No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.
I definitely addressed all of that above, so I'm happy for that reply ^ to be the last word that you so clearly desire :). Or if you need another reply as well, go for it.
-
"That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that you clearly do not research your facts. Holy crap.
You think 1 shooting in Australia occurs for every 13 in America? Did you even -bother- to check your facts before pulling that out of your ass?"
Explain to me, is this more or less attacking me along with the statement?
No need to bring in my personal character flaws that you have perceived into this.
I definitely addressed all of that above, so I'm happy for that reply ^ to be the last word that you so clearly desire :). Or if you need another reply as well, go for it.
I don't necessarily want the last word in any discussion, let a lone this one. Too often you hide behind "attacking an idea" or "attacking a statement" to avoid responsibility for your actions. You and I both know very well that you weren't attacking merely the statement itself. Perks of being the founder of the forum, eh, enwibee?
-
Yeah, I think they should be banned. Too many people abuse the privilege of owning them.
-
Not again...
-
really its their country and only 26% of people support stricter gun control, it is ashame there are so many massacres but their per capita intentional homicide rate is actually quite low (4.7 murders for every 100,000 people) honduras' is 87 !
+ these are tumultous times in the us, murder rates will rise
overall the fact of the matter is we have no right to judge whether a country should adjust their firearm laws if ours are completely different. if it was as easy to get guns here or in britain as it was in the us we'd have a similiar/higher murder rate, but americans dont want guns to be banned and most are happy to live with the additional risk that brings
the question is whether or not sentencing should be pushed up to demotivate potential murderers.