|
| Thread: 9 year old girl shoots instructor dead at gun range |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted August 28, 2014 05:33 PM |
|
|
And if you are feeling defenseless and without the means to do anything if you lack a gun.. That says more about you than you'd think.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 05:37 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 17:41, 28 Aug 2014.
|
|
I'm sure you would've been the first civilian to jump barehanded at Mao's throat if you were born in China some decades ago. Some poor excuse of an argument right there. I have enough historical and ideological support to form my arguments, yours are based on accidents and school shootings at best.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 05:39 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 17:40, 28 Aug 2014.
|
we are under a 1% of slave drivers here, we have been drinking hitler water since the 40s, and our government is ridiculous. (google "what calcifies the pineal gland" if you want to dig)
Well gun's cause problems and I am not seeing them as our solution in this trap. I can't own guns not that I would do anything with them unless it would make a difference.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 05:40 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 17:44, 28 Aug 2014.
|
|
I'm well aware of that Celfious. But are you denying that the government tries to push anti-gun legislation to restrict civilian access to firearms? There's a reason behind every action, your gov wouldn't want "slaves" with guns.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 05:56 PM |
|
|
The right to bear arms is for people to get rid of potential tyrants. But if they are tyrants toward other countries rather than their own, nobody cares.
So yeah, the right to bear arms is pointless as long as poorer countries to suck dry are around.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:08 PM |
|
|
Sometimes you are so adorable stevie. Your state doesn't need to subdue you and govern through fear, it's far safer to keep you 'free' and milk you 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:08 PM |
|
|
Assuming a relevance between tyranny and unarmed civilians is a logical fallacy. None of the countries in Europe have the gun culture US has and they are at least as democratic and liberal as them. That is about historical tradition, not your government who owns tanks, jets, an organized military with specially trained soldiers, getting afraid of your Magnum. We don't live in the 18th century of the founding fathers, militia can not win against military in modern warfare.
That being said, I had the exact same logic Elvin had until I read Elodin's link, presenting data that if people aren't already criminals and have a history of anti-social behavior, it's very unlikely for them to turn into a killer just because they snap. You can't say never but very very unlikely. Of course, that very little part of the ratio becomes important when we talk about military rifles who lets a lunatic kill 30 people in 4 minutes. What else are they good for, protection, hunting, please...
And about learning to shoot at a young age, that is quite a simple equation according to me: What good can come out of it? Children do stupid things all the time, young teenagers are emotionally unstable, cocky, impulsive people and the hormones drive them crazy. What's wrong with learning to shoot when you're 17 or 19? Are you going to die of hunger because you cant hunt, is a kid going to protect his household by shooting at burglars at 13, is that something you can trust him with. Shooting is not playing the piano or becoming an athlete, you don't need to start as an infant for perfection. Americans here, being very used to it, keep saying things like "my little niece learned to shoot at age X/I learned to shoot at age X/My brother learned to shoot at age X" and so on. Sure, most of the time, a teenager who knows how to shoot wont turn into a mass murderer, no surprise there. Most of time, nothing will happen if you drink drive, if you go and fix the antenna on the roof during a thunderstorm, if you swim in an area with a shark warning, most of the time, you'll just walk away. But why? What is the logic behind teaching a 10 year old how to use a shotgun and even manufacturing infant-size shotguns for the job? It just seems so mindless. Other than of course, the manufacturer's perspective, who keeps selling more and more guns.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:22 PM |
|
|
Many things americans do look mindless to us.
But, when it comes to take military decisions, arm soldiers and send them to fight, we (europeans) do not move a finger before americans do it. Then, we enjoy mocking on their particular relation with anything military, weapons and such.
Looks to me a bit hypocrite.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:25 PM |
|
|
I feel it's necessary to define anti-social in the meaning it had in that study. It does not mean asocial.
If you need to google asocial you've probably used anti-social wrong all along.
Also, the amount of naivety in this thread is much entertaining 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:36, 28 Aug 2014.
|
@sal
Well, since I dont agree with most of those invasions, it's not hypocrite on my behalf. However, even if I did, such decisions taken by their congress is hardly anything relevant to the gun culture in society directly. You can talk about a similarity in the mindset but governments hardly take those decisions because people want to act like cowboys, everything is analyzed and calculated (although sometimes very poorly and ignorantly). That's rather about US being a super power and an imperial player. In 1914, it would be the Brits who took the initiative.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:35 PM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
I feel it's necessary to define anti-social in the meaning it had in that study. It does not mean asocial.
If you need to google asocial you've probably used anti-social wrong all along.
Also, the amount of naivety in this thread is much entertaining
No, I meant anti-social. If you check your memory it was me who corrected a poster about the difference between the two. Criminal behavior is not asocial, it's (most of the time) caused by anti-social personality disorder.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:37 PM |
|
|
@artu
I didn't mean people losing it and going berserk in a populated area, what I had in mind was closer to a heated or drunken argument going awry. You don't have to be a killer or mad to pull the trigger and it's hardly impossible to do something you will regret soon afterwards.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:38 PM |
|
|
what has history shown, when a people were denied something? in the united states, at least, they have found a way. look at prohibition. not allowed to buy alcohol? homebrew, or buy it criminally, which carries charges. which means, more people in prison; and not necessarily criminals. you take away the right for law-abiding civilians to own firearms to protect themselves against criminals, guess what? criminals still have access to guns. and so will the government, cops, etc. so, how would a regular citizen defend themselves? if they get caught trying to purchase a firearm illegally, they go to jail/prison, whatever. regular citizen, trying to protect themselves or their family, now among the very people that they were trying to protect themselves and their families from. so, how would a regular citizen protect themselves or their families, when criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns?
the answer is, they couldn't. legally, they'd have to call the cops, and pray that they get to them before the criminal does whatever they want with their family, or them.
yeah, that's a great idea. i don't get why people don't understand that. it's really, REALLY simple.
anyone being anti-gun, should really take a look around themselves. there are always GOING to be irresponsible, stupid, or crazy people either accidentally, or purposely, killing one another. you damn the tool to do it, you're not looking at the real issue.
and, if you take away a tool that can be used for valid, good purposes, you don't solve the problem, either.
the issue, and i'll keep repeating this, is humans. debate human evolution. debate human change. because THAT'S where the issue lies, in every discussion.
discussing whether or not regular citizens should own guns, is just beating around the bush. and haven't people been doing that for WAYYYY too long?
are these discussions meant to merely entertain, or to actually SOLVE something? sure, this is just a gaming forum, but the more people using their discussions to actually ACCOMPLISH something... who knows what might happen?
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:42 PM |
|
|
@artu
Invasions are one thing, necessary military actions are another. The world is confronted to both as today, and Isis is a good example of how lazy and lax Europeans are.
The common American grows with the idea that the world is expecting from him to protect it. By our inactions we create this situation. You can't constantly ask someone to protect you then denounce "logical fallacies" in his rapport with defensive/offensive tools.
And saying that you don't agree with what they do IS a "logical fallacy". Neither do I, but when your democratic government you voted for supports their action, then our personal opinion is not required and does not even enter in equation. We agree by default.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:52, 28 Aug 2014.
|
@Elvin
Yes, I know what you mean, I gave the example of domestic violance, husband going berserk etc, drunk quarell is also a good example. Maybe, it's about the culture around here, we both tend to think normal people can easily lose it and pull the trigger too, most oral arguments are more passionate and hot-tempered around here. But the study shows people who are not already anti-social almost never reach to the point where they shoot someone over a simple argument. They hold back. Exceptions are less than you and I presumed.
Sal said:
And saying that you don't agree with what they do IS a "logical fallacy". Neither do I, but when your democratic government you voted for supports their action, then our personal opinion is not required and does not even enter in equation. We agree by default.
Not at all, we are not the representatives of our government here, we present our individual opinions on a specific matter. That stands especially true, if you didn't vote for the current government in power.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the answer is, they couldn't. legally, they'd have to call the cops, and pray that they get to them before the criminal does whatever they want with their family, or them.
This is how civilized countries handle things.
Quess what? We're also better at it than you are!
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Sal
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 07:01 PM |
|
|
Civilized countries don't handle sh*t anymore. Our police is tied under thousand of political correctness locks and most of criminals go away unharmed.
Not saying that personal weapons would change anything, but the current situation is not civilized in any way.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 07:09 PM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
Quote:
the answer is, they couldn't. legally, they'd have to call the cops, and pray that they get to them before the criminal does whatever they want with their family, or them.
This is how civilized countries handle things.
Quess what? We're also better at it than you are!
at this point, why do i even bother?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 07:24 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
Sometimes you are so adorable stevie. Your state doesn't need to subdue you and govern through fear, it's far safer to keep you 'free' and milk you
You're adorable too, Elvis. I totally agree with you, they could just milk you and keep you content. But is that what happened in the US. Hardly, they press more taxes and restrictions on the population each year, and banning guns was no exception.
artu said:
Assuming a relevance between tyranny and unarmed civilians is a logical fallacy.
You can't see why tyrants wouldn't want their population to have guns?
@fred: I'm getting my VISA asap. I'll contact you when I get in the US. We HAVE to meet 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 28, 2014 07:32 PM |
|
|
|
Tyrants don't want people to have many many things. But a society where most people aren't armed does not CAUSE tyranny, and if a government controlling modern military decides to go tyrannical by some wild scenario, your house guns won't change a thing. So, defending guns due to the possibility of tyranny is baseless in today's circumstances, especially in developed countries.
|
| |
|
|
