Click to expand
Latest users (2): billywonka, Nutshell, anonymous(11).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#15212 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
ITT: Gun control
Needed or not? And if needed, to what degree?
#15300 to #15212 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Of course you need gun control. Keeping lists, waiting periods, and permits are all necessary to mitigate the damage caused by that freedom. Otherwise you would just have a bunch of faggoty 'liberals' move to ban them all. But I remain against talking about it on a national scale because I just don't trust these 'liberals'. They don't want gun control, they want gun bans, they want to ban the ones that are especially effective and that just turns into a slippery slope so it is better not to talk about it so we can keep the freedom while we can.    
Gif Related
Of course you need gun control. Keeping lists, waiting periods, and permits are all necessary to mitigate the damage caused by that freedom. Otherwise you would just have a bunch of faggoty 'liberals' move to ban them all. But I remain against talking about it on a national scale because I just don't trust these 'liberals'. They don't want gun control, they want gun bans, they want to ban the ones that are especially effective and that just turns into a slippery slope so it is better not to talk about it so we can keep the freedom while we can.

Gif Related
#15303 to #15300 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
Don't attach a position to an entire group of people, call them faggots, and then just make up shit about the extent of their positions as a collective whole.
User avatar #15306 to #15303 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
No, no, no. I was just calling some 'liberals' (Air quotes indicating that I do not believe true liberals actually hold this position) faggoty (different from full blown faggot). And I do not consider the obvious truth as 'making shit up'. This subsection of pussy-bitch authoritarians who want to control guns the most also want to ban assault weapons, and very logically can be inferred to having a 'ban all guns' mentality.
User avatar #15312 to #15306 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
what I'm saying is there is no need for name calling, you can just argue for/against a position rather than the people. It doesn't actually add to your argument, it just makes you look like a douche.
User avatar #15314 to #15312 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im not afraid to pepper my arguments with personal attacks against my ideological enemies.
User avatar #15315 to #15314 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
obviously, and it's effective at persuading outside viewers of an argument, but by that same token it should not be done, you're filling your argument with negative perspectives of other ideals rather than a logical argument. People remember the implications of your argument rather than your actual argument, so you're influencing people more with your attacks than your reasoning, and I believe arguments should be won with real logic and reason.
User avatar #15316 to #15315 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
The problem is that shame moves people faster than logical discourse, so at the very least it ought to be applied intelligently. I believe that people who don't agree with gay marriage and ending the wars are fucking degenerates, for instance. If I treat those people as though they are my equals, I do a disservice to my own ideology of egalitarianism and peace.
User avatar #15317 to #15316 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
but the other problem is that when you treat others like inferiors, they treat you like inferiors. And you just walk away thinking each other is an idiot, and you accomplished nothing. And people watching end up just agreeing with their original opinions even more.
User avatar #15318 to #15317 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
This isn't about changing minds, its about getting those on the fence to get the fuck over to the right side. The people who disagree strongly enough wouldn't even admit to changing his mind IF you did change it.
#15279 to #15212 - tweetyftw **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15231 to #15212 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
guns are illegal in mexico.
that's working out great for them isn't it?
User avatar #15284 to #15231 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
Though I agree with your stance in general, Mexico is a rather poor example because its government is not very capable of enforcing its laws, due to the immense power of the drug cartels. I could point to the UK as an example of a place where gun control is extremely strict and gun violence is much less common than in the US.

Each country has its own specific set of circumstances that will impact the effectiveness of gun control laws.
User avatar #15292 to #15284 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
you should realize the differences between the us and the uk.
the UK has NEVER had a bad gun violence problem, and gun violence has actually doubled since the ban were put in place.
since gun violence wasn't bad anyway, the fact that it has doubled isn't as noticeable, only giving the illusion the bans are doing anything.

also, the UK is fucking island half the size of texas.
to make a comparison is asinine.
User avatar #15293 to #15292 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
That's exactly what I said.
User avatar #15294 to #15293 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
well i could point to cities like DC, where gun bans are having absolutely no effect.
User avatar #15296 to #15294 - Ruspanic (12/04/2012) [-]
You're not arguing against me. Read my original comment again.
I brought up the UK simply as a counterexample to your Mexico. My point is that every country is different and to base your arguments on how gun laws have or haven't worked in another country is largely misleading. The US is not Mexico or the UK or Switzerland or Colombia or whatever other example you'd care to bring up.
User avatar #15224 to #15212 - rageisfunny (12/03/2012) [-]
Not needed.
User avatar #15219 to #15212 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
Gun ownership, regardless of government regulation, will still happen.

The difference is that with gun regulations, only the honest, law abiding citizens will give up their guns or avoid purchasing guns, while criminals, since they are already breaking the law, will be the ones buying guns on the black marker or simply making the guns themselves (which can also be quite dangerous). We find that in places such as Chicago, where gun regulations have been in place for a long period of time, violent crimes involving firearms are very common.

In the case of Europe, where gun laws have, for the most part, always existed, violent crimes are still more rampant. You are more likely to actually be wounded by a knife in Europe than you are to be even held up at gunpoint in the USA, let alone get shot.

And in places with few gun control laws, such as Texas, violent crime rates are relatively much lower, all around, not just with firearms.

So just by looking at the statistics, we can easily find that gun control doesn't work. All gun control laws do is make it easier for the government to oppress people (not talking about just the US or Europe here) because revolution becomes much less likely.
User avatar #15220 to #15219 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
do you think we should at least require a safety training course before you purchase a gun?
User avatar #15227 to #15220 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, because then the government could decide the requirements for gun ownership, essentially indirectly banning them for most people.

VERY few accidental deaths are caused by firearms.
slipping in a bathroom is more common.
User avatar #15228 to #15227 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
requiring a safety course is nowhere near banning them from most people. You have to take a safety course to get a drivers license, this is a similar thing. You would just have to learn a bit about using a gun safely and some psychology of using guns. I don't want complete idiots on the road, and I don't want complete idiots to have a gun.
User avatar #15230 to #15228 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
but it isn't needed.
people don't just go and buy guns out of impulse, with no prior experience.
most, if not all, new time gun owners have shot guns with friends, parents, etc before.
User avatar #15233 to #15230 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I think it would reduce violent crimes at least by a little bit. It wouldn't do anything but good, the only cost would be maybe an hour of your time. Just the same as drivers license are needed, people aren't brand new to driving before they buy a car either, the point is to make them learn.
User avatar #15235 to #15233 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, it wouldn't do shit.
how the fuck would it reduce violent crime?
criminals don't buy guns legally.

also gun ownership is a constitutional right.
driving is not.

just so you know,
classes are required for a concealed carry weapon license.
User avatar #15238 to #15235 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
Knowledge of psychological factors that lead to violence reduces the likelihood of violence.
Criminals would more likely to buy guns legally if it was easier to do.
Gun ownership was a constitutional right because we did not have a standing army, so they could defend their country if needed.
I think we need similar classes if we're going to have open carry laws
User avatar #15240 to #15238 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
if a criminal won't buy a gun legally now, he sure as fuck won't take a class to buy one.
i don't understand your logic.

obviously we need better education, but that's a different issue, unless you want to teach proper safety with a firearm in public school, which i wouldn't be against.
ofc that would never happen.
i just don't want a mandatory class for firearm ownership.
that serves no purpose but to make it harder to buy a gun legally.
User avatar #15242 to #15240 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
a class to teach proper safety would be okay in school, but not to buy a firearm?

and maybe it wouldn't reduce gang violence, but it might reduce domestic violence. I honestly don't see what the big deal is here, making it like .5% more difficult to purchase a gun seems worth at least trying to reduce it through education. I don't mean like night school, I mean something like the DMV has, you just take a quiz on safety and maybe have a firing range out back where you demonstrate shooting a pistol. 45 minutes of your time tops. And you would learn how to actually use the gun if you did need to defend yourself.
User avatar #15244 to #15242 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
it still isn't needed
most people don't buy firearms without prior experience.
it won't help with domestic violence
if you have the capacity to shoot someone, a 45 min class wont change your mind.
User avatar #15246 to #15244 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I disagree, but I don't think we're getting anywhere.
User avatar #15353 to #15246 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
classes are meant to provide information and give experience to help prevent accidents. No amount of classes, besides maybe anger management, would help in the case of murder. Especially if this class was mandatory, making it incredibly inefficient. History tells us that "mandatory" regulations are almost never taken 100% seriously.
User avatar #15355 to #15353 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
Except things that are mandatory, like a drivers license or a fishing/hunting license. If you construct the class well, focusing on how to avoid dangerous/ temper raising situations it might be effective.
User avatar #15357 to #15355 - Yardie (12/06/2012) [-]
The class won't be constructed well if you force it. The class will either be begrudgingly taught, or there will be a state worker teaching, and we know how well our public school system, DMV, and USPS do. Its easy to say that it can work, but history tells us it doesn't.
User avatar #15360 to #15357 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
At the very least we could recommend some local gun safety courses.
User avatar #15361 to #15360 - Yardie (12/06/2012) [-]
recommending and advertising are the only things that actually do any good. And there are plenty of gun training/informative classes already. Those classes are taught well because they have people teaching them who are doing it out of free will, and the people that go to them are practically the only people who actually want the help, therefore they are the ones learning. Others would just blow through it like the DMV exams. I mean do you really remember anything that isn't common sense from the DMV courses?
User avatar #15362 to #15361 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
I remember almost all the rules, but it's something I studied for and it's also something I do everyday, so it's not really comparable.
User avatar #15250 to #15246 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
obviously not.
User avatar #15222 to #15220 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I don't think a training course would help, but it really would be worth considering. You need a licence to drive a car because traffic works in a specific way, and not obeying traffic laws can end up getting somebody killed, but accidents still happen very frequently. I don't think that requiring a licence to drive actually helps the accident and death rate of cars. Guns, I feel, are much less complicated than a vehicle, and slightly less dangerous. So I do not think that requiring a licence to buy a gun will actually help the accident rate by a number that would be worth the cost to enforce something like that.

It's a very tough subject though, and I would definitely be willing to listen to any argument for it.

I do, however, think that gun tracing through bullet markings etc. should be enforced to prevent guns being used for violent crimes.
User avatar #15229 to #15222 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
it's proven markings, (micro serial numbers, "bullet markings" whatever the fuck you mean by that, etc) don't do anything.

most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally.
User avatar #15234 to #15229 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I did a bit more research. Turns out I was wrong about bullet markings, as you don't need any regulation to use ballistic forensics. I was under the wrong impressions.

So yeah we don't even need that.

There does need to be a way to make the gun traceable to its buyer though. For example if somebody pays for the gun in cash they must sign off on it or their fingerprint must be taken or something. Otherwise it would be incredibly hard for police to do their job.
User avatar #15237 to #15234 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
handguns have to be registered.
long guns do not.
canada is scrapping their long gun registration because they found it doesn't help anything.
long guns are rarely used in crimes, and even more rarely are they acquired in a traceable manner.

even though handguns are registered, it still doesn't help BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T BUY GUNS LEGALLY.
User avatar #15241 to #15237 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
Hmm... Thinking about this more if guns were not registered, weapons would go out to criminals. If weapons went out to criminals shop owners would be held partially responsible. If they were held partially responsible, they would either be run out of business or come up with efficient ways to monitor who they give guns out to. If they come up with an efficient way to monitor who they give guns out to, everybody is better off.

The more I think about this subject the more I see.

I just have a personal bias against firearms because I've been held up and mugged multiple times.
User avatar #15243 to #15241 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
i have to go through a background check every time i buy a gun.
that's good enough.
i'll repeat once more

if you've been mugged, go through the process and get a concealed carry weapon.
it's not that hard.
User avatar #15245 to #15243 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I got held up when I was younger. I'm only 20 now, and I have to be 21 to be able to own a concealable firearm in California. I've moved out of the area I used to live in though. I used to live in Stockton, California, which is a horrible place, and there's no crime here compared to there. Don't go there. Actually don't come to California unless you're visiting.
User avatar #15249 to #15245 - paintbucket (12/03/2012) [-]
no, i wouldn't even visit.
but you can hardly assume the handguns you were mugged with were registered.
User avatar #15251 to #15249 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
I can almost guarantee they weren't.

I'm not asking for regulation on firearms though.
User avatar #15223 to #15222 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I didn't mean a course just in using the gun, also have it be a course on when not to use it, like on how not to make rash decisions. Someone else mentioned an open carry law, and I would just like to point out that guns and other weapons are violence facilitators, their mere presence makes people behave more violently. And if two people have a gun, one is more likely to shoot the other than if just one had a gun.
User avatar #15225 to #15223 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
The statistics provide conflicting information. In places with open carry laws the crime rates tend to be significantly lower. I don't doubt the logic behind what you're saying, but I think that if two individuals know the other is carrying a weapon, or can safely assume the other is carrying a weapon, they are less likely to even start a fight in the first place. Fights that escalate into gun pulling usually would happen between gang members, which would happen regardless of any gun classes or any gun control laws.

People are going to be turds, and classes, or laws, or anything short of violent force won't stop turds from doing stupid things.
User avatar #15226 to #15225 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
while that is true, the places with open carry laws are much more rural places, less populated, less dense, and not to mention less diversified. Those factors alone significantly lower tendencies for violent crimes. I feel you wouldn't find the same results in LA or Miami (where open carry is prohibited).
User avatar #15232 to #15226 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
And again to my previous point. Those are cities that have big gang presence. They obviously do not care about the open carry prohibition. That is why the crimes still happen. If you were to have everybody able to carry a firearm, it would make people think twice before pulling a gun, especially against people who are not known gang members. Law abiding citizens not carrying guns are at a disadvantage to criminals, and can easily be pushed around. At first there may be a few deaths, but I feel most of the deaths would be against criminals who do not expect a gun to be pulled on them. Eventually it would even out and people would probably be less likely to use gun on each other out of fear of being shot themselves. Gang presence would actually probably lower significantly at this point.

Criminals do not have to fear getting shot by law abiding citizens if they can't openly hold their guns, therefore there is more incentive to perform crimes. If you add fear to the equation, crime rates would go down logically speaking.

And before you get started on the police, it is well known that the police don't do shit in crime dense areas. They don't want to die either.
User avatar #15236 to #15232 - pokemonstheshiz (12/03/2012) [-]
I agree, but disagree with "people would probably be less likely to use a gun on each other out of fear of being shot themselves." That's completely wrong from a psychological standpoint. If you think someone will shoot you, your probability of shooting him and his probability of shooting you are both significantly increased. But my real point is that I still think we need licenses if we have open carry laws.
User avatar #15239 to #15236 - Yardie (12/03/2012) [-]
What I mean is people would be less likely to resort to violent crime to settle their differences. Nobody wants to risk getting shot, and puling a firearm is what increases that risk, not the fact that they are carrying one. The reason a firearm is pulled in an argument is to assert dominance. If the playing field is even, and both parties are carrying a weapon, that factor is canceled out. Neither person will feel dominant if both have a gun, and logically neither will pull their weapon unless their life is threatened. If somebody is violent enough to pull a gun in an argument anyways, chances are that they would have a gun on them regardless of open carry policies, and even if they didn't they would resort to fists, blades, anything and everything. Evening the playing field and adding fear to the action of pulling a firearm will decrease the chances of firearms being pulled in the first place, I can guarantee you that.
User avatar #15213 to #15212 - duudegladiator ONLINE (12/03/2012) [-]
Not needed. Needs to be less strict if anything, Open Carry Laws are what needs to be put into affect. (In America that is.)
 Friends (0)