• Don't know what to watch? Try a random show!
First  Prev  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people be allowed to own guns?
15468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/2/14 , edited 9/2/14

kaolinite wrote:



You're joking, right?
Posted 9/8/14 , edited 9/9/14
I hope so. Haven't you noticed, the further down on her list the crazier it becomes? An odd mixture of truths, half-truths, and outight ridiculousness. Now if she believed it that would be scarier.



Posted 9/9/14
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/10/14
In a properly educated society, gun ownership is acceptable as long as the means of forensic firearms identification is flawless. Though that would be redundant because property crime wouldn't be such an issue in a properly educated society. If the education sector is weak, gun ownership will only be destructive and turn around to bite in the time of a crisis. Truthfully, the distribution of guns is a poor countermeasure to crime considering the crux of the problem lies in education and poverty. I guess that may have been the only solution for the US, where people are already as dumb as they can be. However on a global scale it makes the US an undesirable place to live, which is certainly a rising issue for the US economy.

But hey, with the rise of 3D printers, anyone who wants one will have access to printed guns and bullets anyway. So there goes forensic identification!

Personally, assuming guns are primarily for self-defense in the cases of robberies and alike, I would prefer a taser gun over a real gun for the fact that I don't want the bloodstains of dumb people all over my carpet. When taking into account the risks of "missing" the first shot, well, all I can say is you better come up with a backup plan. I like the idea of a sound security system of prerecorded gunfire or even crowd noise.
15412 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Online
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/10/14
At this point, in real life, yes.

But here's a hypothetical situation: Humans all had knives and, suddenly, the guns of today were invented by some genius. Should people be allowed to own guns?

In this case, I'd say no.

The difference here is that guns didn't pop out recently. They are too widely distributed now. Lots of bad people have guns because they've had a long time to go about procuring them. Banning guns now only denies the law-abiding common citizen the only reasonable means of protection against a gun-wielding enemy.

Do you seriously believe the police will always arrive on time to protect you? As the saying goes: When seconds matter, the police are mere minutes away.
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/10/14

applestash wrote:

In a properly educated society, gun ownership is acceptable as long as the means of forensic firearms identification is flawless. Though that would be redundant because property crime wouldn't be such an issue in a properly educated society. If the education sector is weak, gun ownership will only be destructive and turn around to bite in the time of a crisis. Truthfully, the distribution of guns is a poor countermeasure to crime considering the crux of the problem lies in education and poverty. I guess that may have been the only solution for the US, where people are already as dumb as they can be. However on a global scale it makes the US an undesirable place to live, which is certainly a rising issue for the US economy.

But hey, with the rise of 3D printers, anyone who wants one will have access to printed guns and bullets anyway. So there goes forensic identification!

Personally, assuming guns are primarily for self-defense in the cases of robberies and alike, I would prefer a taser gun over a real gun for the fact that I don't want the bloodstains of dumb people all over my carpet. When taking into account the risks of "missing" the first shot, well, all I can say is you better come up with a backup plan. I like the idea of a sound security system of prerecorded gunfire or even crowd noise.


Education will not address people's choices, it is just a fact. Likewise the concept of forensic identification of firearms is a literal impossibility. For a lack of a better comparison, this is not Psycho Pass, guns are not built with databases and authenticated users, nor is any company going to build such a system. Concepts like micro stamping are pretty much a fallacy as lets be honest, it can be defeated with simple sand paper.

Poverty? While use social inequality is a issue, the fact is that being poor is not a justification for crime. Would education fix that? Potentially, it would at least give knowledge and skills to get into a better job, but again that is the choice of the individual to pursue also. So again, you can be as educated as you want but it means nothing if you choose to use said education for crime.

US undesirable place to live? From Homeland Security, over 800,000 naturalized just in 2013. That is of course excluding even "undocumented" immigrants. I won't go on the whole "AMERICA IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD" but the fact is people DO come here, from ALL around the world. Likewise, our crime problem has continued to be on a path of reducing, just under a decade ago we had murder well into double what it is today, likewise all the hysteria about guns is just a fueled knee jerk.

Back to guns, 3D Printers have made potentially no change towards the aspect of making guns. It has always been legal to self produce a firearm, whether it is made out of plastic or aluminum it has no difference. So saying that is such a major issue is really not looking in much depth at how it was already possible without said technology.

As for your choice of self defense, if missing the first shot is your concern, then you should know most the taser "guns" are a single shot probe, which can be useless as it may not even stop your attacker. Likewise, if you go down to just the basic taser you have to be within arms distance, and non-obstructed, or even not have it taken away from you. It leaves far more "what ifs" than just missing the first shot in a firearm that can have anywhere from 5-30 rounds in a magazine. So again, if you are truly looking at these as solutions for in a life or death situation, I'd best rethink them.

I'll just simply end it at this way, education while is a big factor that can help is not the answer to such issues, as again, the choice to be a criminal is not just because you have no education, it is a choice that they made themselves. Likewise, gun ownership is not the fundamental issue, the issue is criminal's actions. Or even another point to look at hard is the justice system is another issue, especially considering the recidivism rate for most crime stretches to 60-80% almost. Simply put, there is many other issues than guns that if addressed it would make crime less of a issue.
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/10/14

Nasigno wrote:

Education will not address people's choices, it is just a fact. Likewise the concept of forensic identification of firearms is a literal impossibility. For a lack of a better comparison, this is not Psycho Pass, guns are not built with databases and authenticated users, nor is any company going to build such a system. Concepts like micro stamping are pretty much a fallacy as lets be honest, it can be defeated with simple sand paper.

Poverty? While use social inequality is a issue, the fact is that being poor is not a justification for crime. Would education fix that? Potentially, it would at least give knowledge and skills to get into a better job, but again that is the choice of the individual to pursue also. So again, you can be as educated as you want but it means nothing if you choose to use said education for crime.

US undesirable place to live? From Homeland Security, over 800,000 naturalized just in 2013. That is of course excluding even "undocumented" immigrants. I won't go on the whole "AMERICA IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD" but the fact is people DO come here, from ALL around the world. Likewise, our crime problem has continued to be on a path of reducing, just under a decade ago we had murder well into double what it is today, likewise all the hysteria about guns is just a fueled knee jerk.

Back to guns, 3D Printers have made potentially no change towards the aspect of making guns. It has always been legal to self produce a firearm, whether it is made out of plastic or aluminum it has no difference. So saying that is such a major issue is really not looking in much depth at how it was already possible without said technology.

As for your choice of self defense, if missing the first shot is your concern, then you should know most the taser "guns" are a single shot probe, which can be useless as it may not even stop your attacker. Likewise, if you go down to just the basic taser you have to be within arms distance, and non-obstructed, or even not have it taken away from you. It leaves far more "what ifs" than just missing the first shot in a firearm that can have anywhere from 5-30 rounds in a magazine. So again, if you are truly looking at these as solutions for in a life or death situation, I'd best rethink them.

I'll just simply end it at this way, education while is a big factor that can help is not the answer to such issues, as again, the choice to be a criminal is not just because you have no education, it is a choice that they made themselves. Likewise, gun ownership is not the fundamental issue, the issue is criminal's actions. Or even another point to look at hard is the justice system is another issue, especially considering the recidivism rate for most crime stretches to 60-80% almost. Simply put, there is many other issues than guns that if addressed it would make crime less of a issue.


Education does not "address" people's choices; it simply improves the levels of decision-making in the society. Therefore it reduces the number of people who resort to crime. Simple, isn't it?

Forensic identification is generally done with the bullet, not the gun. Microstamping has a lot more potential than you think it would, and if done properly, simply "filing off" the identification codes would not suffice, especially with something like... sandpaper. Of course, that is in a world where 3D printers do not exist.

Nobody said being poor is a justification for crime. Simply, a reduction in poverty means a reduction in crime, due to the very interrelated nature of the two subjects.

Back to 3D printers. 3D printing has not reached its peak in the consumer market, so there's not much point stating your present observations. 3D printing makes it significantly easy for your average citizen to produce firearms and bullets, and therefore increases the dangers in society. An increase in gun crimes increases gun demand. That's how the US society works.

Like I said, my personal preference is not recommended for anyone other than me. I would rather die than have the blood of dumb people stain my carpet.
1232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/14
I'm a firearm enthusiast. The only things my guns have ever put holes in have been pieces of paper or old soda cans. Target shooting is a great stress reliever. IF need be, I am prepared to defend myself and my property, but hopefully that day never comes. So long as society can trust you, ownership of a firearm is and should be your right, just as not owning one is your right. We should NOT be restricting the liberty of free citizens who have not been proven to have committed a crime. At all. Ever.

As for the dangers involved of firearms being in civillian hands, a firearm is a machine. It has to be operated to be a danger to anyone. Someone has to have the weapon loaded, pointed at something and the firing mechanism has to be set off (Typically by a trigger, but some older more dangerous designs can go off without a trigger pull). The firearm is not the problem, it is the intent of the user. If the user intends to cause problems, they will use whatever means they can get their hands on, be it a firearm, a knife, an axe, or even a baseball bat (the list can go on and on).

What bothers me is the puritanical nature of some people, I don't like something so you don't get to partake. Look at the anti-smoking people going after electronic cigarettes despite the fact that e-cigs are a very effective alternative and most vapers are very polite about not bothering people while they use them.
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/11/14

applestash wrote:


Education does not "address" people's choices; it simply improves the levels of decision-making in the society. Therefore it reduces the number of people who resort to crime. Simple, isn't it?

Forensic identification is generally done with the bullet, not the gun. Microstamping has a lot more potential than you think it would, and if done properly, simply "filing off" the identification codes would not suffice, especially with something like... sandpaper. Of course, that is in a world where 3D printers do not exist.

Nobody said being poor is a justification for crime. Simply, a reduction in poverty means a reduction in crime, due to the very interrelated nature of the two subjects.

Back to 3D printers. 3D printing has not reached its peak in the consumer market, so there's not much point stating your present observations. 3D printing makes it significantly easy for your average citizen to produce firearms and bullets, and therefore increases the dangers in society. An increase in gun crimes increases gun demand. That's how the US society works.

Like I said, my personal preference is not recommended for anyone other than me. I would rather die than have the blood of dumb people stain my carpet.


If education by logic improved decision making, then we wouldn't have such high profile scandals such as Enron, Maddox, and the various other high profile cases in which CEOs, and people with education, power, and wealth did not use those positions to commit said crimes. Again, education means nothing towards decisions.

Micro stamping a bullet? Take the time to look at how bullets actually deform when they are fired. It is just a fact they will have major deformities when being used, so in most cases it would be impossible to identify from that aspect. Two, considering the fact when a bullet travels out of a rifled barrel, more than likely you will either remove the stamp from just the pure movement. Unless you care to argue that a bullet spinning at ~300,000 RPM out the barrel, under heat and friction is going to hold a "micro stamp?" I'm not even going to mention all the other obstacles it will encounter upon going out the barrel.

Another aspect, typically cleaning could easily remove a stamp from within the chamber and barrel, between corrosive solvents used for cleaning, rough brushes it is easy to see where it can be removed with just regular maintenance of the firearm, not to mention even just regular use as again, if it is stamping the bullet it will be exposed to heat and friction from just the firing, and you have no assurance it would not just be worn off.

Again, 3D Printers have no effect on gun production, you can easily buy 80% lowers and then produce a firearm without even needing a printer. And since it is not a complete firearm, it does not need to be marked with even a serial # or go through a FFL. Likewise, only the LOWER has to be purchased with a background check, since it is the only part that is considered a firearm by law. So all the other parts, including the upper and remaining parts to finish the lower are pretty much easy to purchase without needing a background check. Will someone go through this? Probably, but again it is already an existing method if you really want to produce your own firearm with no background check.

As for your personal choice, I'll respect it as you have your right to choose that. I'm glad that you also see to the point that you only recommend it to you. I just hope for the best for you, and that you never have to encounter such a situation as nobody deserves to have that to happen to them.
15468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/11/14

MurphNH wrote:

I'm a firearm enthusiast. The only things my guns have ever put holes in have been pieces of paper or old soda cans. Target shooting is a great stress reliever. IF need be, I am prepared to defend myself and my property, but hopefully that day never comes. So long as society can trust you, ownership of a firearm is and should be your right, just as not owning one is your right. We should NOT be restricting the liberty of free citizens who have not been proven to have committed a crime. At all. Ever.


Sure enough.


As for the dangers involved of firearms being in civillian hands, a firearm is a machine. It has to be operated to be a danger to anyone. Someone has to have the weapon loaded, pointed at something and the firing mechanism has to be set off (Typically by a trigger, but some older more dangerous designs can go off without a trigger pull). The firearm is not the problem, it is the intent of the user. If the user intends to cause problems, they will use whatever means they can get their hands on, be it a firearm, a knife, an axe, or even a baseball bat (the list can go on and on).


Social factors such as poverty, lack of economic opportunity, discrimination, lack of access to regular mental health services, and black market actors whose business models are built around exploiting the effects of all these factors (read: gangs) seem to be more important than firearms distribution itself in contributing to violent crime.

Institutions like tuition free tertiary education, single-payer healthcare systems, drug rehabilitation programs, and incarceration schema designed to rehabilitate and educate rather than punish save lives, restore and maintain economic and social opportunity, reduce crime and recidivism, and give your nation cause to brag to the international community besides. What's more, establishing a culture which views criminals as people who require rehabilitation instead of second class citizens who've "given up their rights" will help to mitigate the mentality that crime is all one has once one has become a criminal. It's better to start with those sort of things first and then see what sort of firearms restrictions might be necessary.
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M / Hicksville Ohio(n...
Offline
Posted 9/11/14

BlueOni wrote:


MurphNH wrote:

I'm a firearm enthusiast. The only things my guns have ever put holes in have been pieces of paper or old soda cans. Target shooting is a great stress reliever. IF need be, I am prepared to defend myself and my property, but hopefully that day never comes. So long as society can trust you, ownership of a firearm is and should be your right, just as not owning one is your right. We should NOT be restricting the liberty of free citizens who have not been proven to have committed a crime. At all. Ever.


Sure enough.


As for the dangers involved of firearms being in civillian hands, a firearm is a machine. It has to be operated to be a danger to anyone. Someone has to have the weapon loaded, pointed at something and the firing mechanism has to be set off (Typically by a trigger, but some older more dangerous designs can go off without a trigger pull). The firearm is not the problem, it is the intent of the user. If the user intends to cause problems, they will use whatever means they can get their hands on, be it a firearm, a knife, an axe, or even a baseball bat (the list can go on and on).


Social factors such as poverty, lack of economic opportunity, discrimination, lack of access to regular mental health services, and black market actors whose business models are built around exploiting the effects of all these factors (read: gangs) seem to be more important than firearms distribution itself in contributing to violent crime.

Institutions like tuition free tertiary education, single-payer healthcare systems, drug rehabilitation programs, and incarceration schema designed to rehabilitate and educate rather than punish save lives, restore and maintain economic and social opportunity, reduce crime and recidivism, and give your nation cause to brag to the international community besides. What's more, establishing a culture which views criminals as people who require rehabilitation instead of second class citizens who've "given up their rights" will help to mitigate the mentality that crime is all one has once one has become a criminal. It's better to start with those sort of things first and then see what sort of firearms restrictions might be necessary.


Or we can round up all the bad guys and send them to island where Ray Liotta can kick all their asses

15468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/11/14

hicksvilledave wrote:

Or we can round up all the bad guys and send them to island where Ray Liotta can kick all their asses


Of course! I forgot to carry the five.
Posted 9/12/14

Nasigno wrote:

If education by logic improved decision making, then we wouldn't have such high profile scandals such as Enron, Maddox, and the various other high profile cases in which CEOs, and people with education, power, and wealth did not use those positions to commit said crimes. Again, education means nothing towards decisions.

Micro stamping a bullet? Take the time to look at how bullets actually deform when they are fired. It is just a fact they will have major deformities when being used, so in most cases it would be impossible to identify from that aspect. Two, considering the fact when a bullet travels out of a rifled barrel, more than likely you will either remove the stamp from just the pure movement. Unless you care to argue that a bullet spinning at ~300,000 RPM out the barrel, under heat and friction is going to hold a "micro stamp?" I'm not even going to mention all the other obstacles it will encounter upon going out the barrel.

Another aspect, typically cleaning could easily remove a stamp from within the chamber and barrel, between corrosive solvents used for cleaning, rough brushes it is easy to see where it can be removed with just regular maintenance of the firearm, not to mention even just regular use as again, if it is stamping the bullet it will be exposed to heat and friction from just the firing, and you have no assurance it would not just be worn off.

Again, 3D Printers have no effect on gun production, you can easily buy 80% lowers and then produce a firearm without even needing a printer. And since it is not a complete firearm, it does not need to be marked with even a serial # or go through a FFL. Likewise, only the LOWER has to be purchased with a background check, since it is the only part that is considered a firearm by law. So all the other parts, including the upper and remaining parts to finish the lower are pretty much easy to purchase without needing a background check. Will someone go through this? Probably, but again it is already an existing method if you really want to produce your own firearm with no background check.

As for your personal choice, I'll respect it as you have your right to choose that. I'm glad that you also see to the point that you only recommend it to you. I just hope for the best for you, and that you never have to encounter such a situation as nobody deserves to have that to happen to them.


Education shapes the next generation's values, teaches discipline, and develops the social skills needed to survive out in the real world. In other words, simple decision-making such as "avoiding the wrong peers" can be taught in the stage of education. Other than the fact that your examples are irrelevant to gun crime, your examples only serve to strengthen the issue that the current education system is a failure. Commercial corruption will never cease to exist, and it's quite narrow to claim that education has no effect on the decision-making capabilities of society as a whole based on those instances. Statistically, it is demonstrated that a high school dropout is 4 times more likely to be incarcerated than a high school graduate; which only rises relative to tertiary education. Your understanding of the education system needs to be reformed.
15468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/12/14 , edited 9/12/14
Disclaimer: My tone should be read as explanatory, not supportive.

That representation of German history is technically accurate, but a bit of an oversimplification. Things basically went down like this:

1. The Central Powers lose WWI, the Allies ban firearms sale/distribution in Germany outright as part of the peace agreement.
2. The Weimar Republic moves from a ban to strict licensing standards.
3. The NSDAP is formed partly in response to Germany's declining geopolitical influence (this is an important point).
4. The Weimar Republic, in response to the anti-government activities of the NSDAP, tightens firearms distribution/possession standards.
5. The NSDAP takes over Germany and loosens the preceding government's standards for everyone except Jews (for whom a ban is restored), though the standards are still very strict overall.

It's insufficient to simply say "Hitler didn't think private citizens should have guns". He wanted Germany to arm down to the last man and to rally them against Germany's "oppressors" and the elements of society he and his had deemed to be complicit in bringing about Germany's economic and geopolitical decline, and he wanted to disarm those elements partly so they couldn't overthrow him and partly because he genuinely believed they were subhuman criminals unworthy of the right to be armed to begin with. Remember that we're talking about a man who idealized the German people (or at least his own vision thereof) and the country they composed (again, in his mind) to the point of what might be called worship, and took it as a grievous personal insult that Germany had been defeated in the first world war and faced an ongoing economic and geopolitical decline.

His objective wasn't to bring himself to power and glory, it was to restore German solidarity and power in the form of an idealized institution that each and every German (by his definition) shared a common devotion to: the Fascist state. His cult of personality wasn't for his own glory, it was put into place because complete devotion to a state is easier to instill when there's a human to associate therewith. Likewise, in Hitler's mind a disarmed German people (again, his vision thereof) would have no teeth, it would be weakened, and that's exactly the opposite of what he wanted. He wanted strength for those he considered German, even those unaffiliated with the NSDAP. That's why those standards were loosened for them.

So yes, technically Hitler wanted to seize firearms. But at the same time he actually wanted them to become more widespread. It's a complicated issue.
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

applestash wrote:

Education shapes the next generation's values, teaches discipline, and develops the social skills needed to survive out in the real world. In other words, simple decision-making such as "avoiding the wrong peers" can be taught in the stage of education. Other than the fact that your examples are irrelevant to gun crime, your examples only serve to strengthen the issue that the current education system is a failure. Commercial corruption will never cease to exist, and it's quite narrow to claim that education has no effect on the decision-making capabilities of society as a whole based on those instances. Statistically, it is demonstrated that a high school dropout is 4 times more likely to be incarcerated than a high school graduate; which only rises relative to tertiary education. Your understanding of the education system needs to be reformed.


This is where I have to say I disagree with you entirely. The Department of Education is not there to teach children morality and what is right. That is a duty of the parents. Teachers can teach you what is right and wrong by definition of law, but I do not want to see teachers having the right to also teach morality to children. For a simple point, not every single person runs on the same moral compass, would you want potentially some teacher who has questionable morals teach your child the direct opposite of what you would teach them?

I can extend my examples to people like James Holmes, or even the Virginia Tech shooter, one of the two most major massacres in US history, they had educations and bright futures but they decided to throw that away to just mass slaughter random people because of whatever reasons they had. I would also like to extend the fact that I make a bet some gun murders also had "Successful" individuals involved in them, it is just a fact education did not curb their decisions, nor did any other benefits of being educated.

As for if my situation is irrelevant, then you must look into the fact your statement about high school drops out being 4x more likely as irrelevant to guns. As again, most crime in America is drug related, mostly possession, sale, or use. So in other words more than likely those drop outs are also involved in drug crime. Again, pointless situation towards guns.

So I will say my understanding of the education system does not need to be reformed, the adults who brought kids into this society has to take ownership of their child's actions. Morality is a issue, but it is not something for schools to solve, it is subject for the PEOPLE to solve, specifically parents.
First  Prev  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.