CGPersia Forums
Release Blog CGPeers Register FAQ IRC Chat
Go Back   CGPersia Forums > Off Topic > Off-Topic Discussion
Reload this Page major NY gun control law passed ''22 Murders in 11 Days Gun Control Won't Help Chicago''
Off-Topic Discussion Freely chit-chat about anything

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-20-2012   #1
EYE's Avatar
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 288
Thanks (Given): 100
Thanks (Received): 148
Exclamation major NY gun control law passed ''22 Murders in 11 Days Gun Control Won't Help Chicago''

Link(s):
 
VIDEO
> > >
Link(s):
 


Link(s):
 

Link(s):
 




Last edited by EYE; 01-16-2013 at 05:16 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #2
BiggBirdd
BiggBirdd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,131
Thanks (Given): 354
Thanks (Received): 4119
Details please?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #3
fagf
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 437
Thanks (Given): 217
Thanks (Received): 495
when eye remembers to link to this important law he's posted about, be sure to forward it to cnn. they seem to have missed the news.
Link(s):
 
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #4
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
If you rely on CNN - or any other single news source - for all of your information then you are a complete idiot. CNN is an incredibly biased train wreck of a news source that only reports on shit that everyone who isn't stupid already knows about.


Link(s):
 
Link(s):
 
Link(s):
 
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - digitalartist71, sexjunkle thanked for this post
Old 07-21-2012   #5
BiggBirdd
BiggBirdd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,131
Thanks (Given): 354
Thanks (Received): 4119
Everyone wanted change. They're getting it.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - digitalartist71, EYE thanked for this post
Old 07-21-2012   #6
Bollie
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 107
Thanks (Given): 64
Thanks (Received): 38
Never gonna fucken happen. The NRA and all the psycho conservatives will go ape shit, especially the militias. They will not risk the possibility of another civil war. The fuckers will have to pry my gun from my "cold dead hand!"
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
3 Thanks, 0 . - digitalartist71, EYE, George1016 thanked for this post
Old 07-21-2012   #7
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
That's a dangerous sentiment, Bollie. I'd like to agree with you that it will never happen, and you may be right, but it is much better to be aware of all the agendas and what's going on in order to stop this kind of thing before it happens if possible. Liberal media outlets don't report this kind of stuff, so people like Fagf don't know what's going on. If the treaty did pass, and 2/3 of the senate voted to support it, it would become US law and anyone who wanted to keep their guns would be put into a position to literally fight for their rights. Even with all the militiamen and gun owners and sympathetic US soldiers, it would be difficult to fight off tanks and drones and all that if you were put into a martial law type situation. No one wants another civil war, but that doesn't keep those in power from pushing their agendas on us and driving us closer to one. Just my two cents.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #8
DanielleEber
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 174
Thanks (Given): 24
Thanks (Received): 130
Link(s):
 
Many of those tanks are overseas, so they would not be very useful. US military swear to uphold the Constitution:

Link(s):
 
I would expect them to follow their oath before orders to disarm the population, and in any case there is more than one firearm for every adult in the USA, so it would be a logistical nightmare trying to take all of them away. What I really expect is if the Senate tried to pass such a treaty, there would be a lot of dead senators.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #9
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
Of course the US military is sworn to protect the Constitution, but the Constitution states that any treaty supported by a 2/3 vote by the senate becomes US law which is even more difficult to reverse than a constitutional amendment. Following their oath would mean, in this case, disarming the population. Also, people often do what the people who pay them tell them to do.

Sure, there might be more than one firearm for every adult in the US - but most of them are in large collections that make it easier for them to be taken away. Raiding these militia-type compounds and the caches of large gun collectors would take care of most of that imbalance. While the situation might not be the exact same, Australia's government didn't find it that hard to take away their citizens' guns. Also, you're fooling yourself if you don't think there are both tanks and drones on US soil.

This type of "it will never happen" attitude is what gives people the power to make things happen.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #10
sexjunkle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 390
Thanks (Given): 152
Thanks (Received): 96
Link(s):
 
Which is probably why the Usurper in Chief is downplaying the UN Treaty as though it's only symbolic in nature.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #11
Bollie
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 107
Thanks (Given): 64
Thanks (Received): 38
@cdizzle: I can most definitely agree with you. But, the statement I've made is an informed one. Although I hate to admit it I am extremely up to date when it comes down to political matters. How can anyone make such a statement without getting into the "game". In this day and age "We The People" has a whole new meaning, and is based on religion, ethnicity, and social class. The bottom line is...if I'm a casualty of this/the establishments ethnocentric philosophy...then so be it. I have always known that the day would come when the powers that be would make their move for the right to survive which has been decided by world affairs. I just never thought it would happen in my lifetime. Fucken cockroches crawling all over one another.

EDIT: I would rather die on my knees fighting for what is right rather than cowtowing to ethnocentrism.

Last edited by Bollie; 07-21-2012 at 05:58 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #12
legg
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 663
Thanks (Given): 55
Thanks (Received): 166
don't really care.....i live on a civilized continent.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #13
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
@sexjunkle: Yup. You can always tell how important something is by how secretive or nonchalant the government acts towards it.

@bollie: While I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, I don't think this has much to do with ethnocentricity. It's about control, regardless of ideals or class. Anyone who wants control would probably prefer that you die (on your knees or any other position) than have to keep you in line.

@legg: This is a UN treaty, Einstein. Does your "civilized continent" have members of the UN? Then it effects you. If not, then it still effects you. Smarten up.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #14
larrys
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,554
Thanks (Given): 624
Thanks (Received): 379
Link(s):
 
I hope they don't away or an restrict anything
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #15
Bollie
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 107
Thanks (Given): 64
Thanks (Received): 38
@cdizzle: I disagree. Of course it's all about control and it has everything to do with ideals and class,... better or a.k.a the "establishment or ruling class." It is apparent that the so called "ruling class" are in fact promulgating their "elitist" ideals on the rest of us or so called riff=Raff. Isn't their tenant or ideals to control because of their ruling class ideology?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012   #16
drafter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 95
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 61
I think that the UN treaty should be rewritten to contain a clause subjugating itself completely to the constitutionally granted rights and restrictions in the signatory countries that have such constitutional rights. Period. Treaty law should NEVER trample the individual countries' constitutions. BTW, I put the word "restrictions" in there because, while the US has no restrictions in the 2nd Amendment, other countries might. No matter. Regardless of what a country's constitution says, rights or restrictions, the treaty should, and must insure that any country's constitution takes absolute precedence above the treaty.

Should any of you wonder or try to draw conclusions about my political leanings from that opinion, don't. You'll probably be wrong.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012   #17
legg
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 663
Thanks (Given): 55
Thanks (Received): 166
Link(s):
 
lmfao.....we don't worry about guns as a general rule in europe; no need to. so you continue getting all damp in your pants. btw wtf are you critizing someone for putting up a cnn link when you put up a fox news link? fox has more in common with the cartoon network or any halfwit neo-facist newsletter. the only arms or arm you need to worry about is the one stuck up your arsehole. Pull it out and relax.

I wouldn't worry about the UN resolution its not like the US will pay any attention to it anyway.. look at Iraq

Last edited by legg; 07-22-2012 at 06:58 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Feersum thanked for this post
Old 07-22-2012   #18
DanielleEber
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 174
Thanks (Given): 24
Thanks (Received): 130
Link(s):
 
You don't understand the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Laws passed by Congress, and treaties approved by the Senate are supreme over *state* law. But the Constitution itself is above both of those, and requires approval of Congress *and* the states to change. The method of changing the constitution is clearly laid out, and any attempt to change it by some other method is automatically unconstitutional.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012   #19
Bobba_the_Hut
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 328
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 69
If you're so scared of your government that you feel you need automatic weapons to protect yourself from it, can I suggest a different tactic . . . I dunno, maybe, emigration?

That said, if I lived out in the wilds of Idaho, hours from the nearest police, I would want to own a gun. And I completely get the addictive nature of shooting.

But surely it's got to be obvious by now that it's much safer to live in a country where there are hardly any guns in general circulation?
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012   #20
tarzan
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 627
Thanks (Given): 384
Thanks (Received): 208
Owning a gun to protect yourself? Sure, why not? I bought a gun during the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King trial verdict (for those of you who remember those days). I subsequently sold it, because of family pressures.

But stockpiling guns and ammos, like this guy did in Aurora, Colorado? I am all against it. I think there should be strict limits as to what kind of firearms and how many of them a private citizen is allowed to own.
__________________
Acclaimed CGP Celebrity. Winner of the Intelligent Discussions Award.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012   #21
MS6
MS6's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,688
Thanks (Given): 1297
Thanks (Received): 979
A gun is only able to protect yourself, your family and friends if...
  • ...you have it available at all times (I wouldn't carry a gun to a Batman premiere - or let my kids do it - or walk city streets with a gun in my jacket)
  • ...your skilled enough to use it faster/better than your attacker (excluding all cases were it comes without warning - or you already have the other one sticking up your nose)
  • ...you're living in the outskirts and fear the bear
Imho in every other case the spreading of firearms just elevates the risks for your loved ones instead of lowering it.
Do you feel safer if you kid is carrying a gun?
Do you still think that way if that would apply to all of it's classmates?
I don't.

Around one third (~35%) of the guns previously owned by Federal inmates have been given to them by friends and family.
Another ~20% have been bought at retail stores, pawnshops or gun shows.

Secondly imho there are much bigger risks than being shot or killed by terrorists.



E.g.
  • car accidents (>40,000 deaths each year in the U.S.)
  • smoking
    around 18% of all deaths of Americans are caused by or related to it
    ~440,000 died because of smoking
    ~9,000 murders in 2010 caused by firearms
  • fastfood, sweets (diabetes alone contributed to >200.000 deaths)
Now go, shoot the burger. Or lead your multi-billion wars against tobacco if it's really about protecting your people.
Just my 2 cents.

Carry your gun and smoke your cigarette, feel the freedom.
Like the Marlboro Man.

I'm well aware that my post is naive, stupid, short-sighted, retarded and that I'm a cynical asshole.
But that's how I feel free

Last edited by MS6; 07-22-2012 at 03:47 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - Feersum thanked for this post
Old 07-22-2012   #22
squ
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 759
Thanks (Given): 456
Thanks (Received): 238
there will always be nutters. To base your politics on 'em is just daft.
As a european I can't think of anything more uncomfortable and foreign as wearing a gun, that includes a burka.
__________________
moin, moin ...
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - MS6 thanked for this post
Old 07-22-2012   #23
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
@Drafter: That would, indeed, be a welcome addition. However, this treaty doesn't have such a clause and therefore poses a threat to existing rights.

@Legg: You are, indeed, just trying to be confrontational. You don't worry about guns in Europe because the majority of you don't have the right to own one. It's easy to not worry about your rights when they've already been taken from you. Also, I wasn't criticizing anyone for putting up a CNN link - as no one did put up a CNN link - I was criticizing people for relying on a single news source. Fox News may be extremely biased, but when used in conjunction with other news sources it has some value. I certainly wouldn't use it as a main source, but only so many news sources are covering this. Also, I have nothing up my ass - that's more of a European thing, from what I hear.

@DanielleEber: I understand the Supremecy Clause just fine. A treaty ratified by the senate and then by the president becomes federal law, and is supported by the Constitution. The current administration has already done much in opposition of the Constitution, so creating another federal law that contradicts the 2nd amendment isn't really out of character. I'm not sure about the point you are trying to make.

@Bobba_the_Hutt: We don't have automatic weapons here legally. Also, owning firearms isn't about fear it is about maintaining the power of the populous as a fail safe against government tyranny and giving people as much freedom as possible. Running away from something is stupid when you can just fix it. Also, it isn't obvious that living in a country without guns is safer. If someone wants to hurt someone, they will make it happen with or without guns. Also, people who want to hurt people don't care about the legality of the weapons they have. Plenty of criminals in Europe and Asia have guns.

@Tarzan: This guy didn't stockpile weapons, he just bought a few and then used them to commit domestic terrorism. There already are strict limits on what kind of weapons a person can own. A person with a single weapon could easily have done the same amount of damage this asshole did with several, he just wanted to feel like a big powerful man because he was a shithead. It's not about having or not having guns, it's about valuing human life.

@MS6: I don't necessarily disagree with anything you just said, but personal firearms have proved themselves valuable in saving lives and property throughout modern US history. The fact that most guns used in criminal activities were originally purchased legally is because they were available - it doesn't mean that those criminals wouldn't have hurt someone if the guns weren't legally available. Freedom requires responsibility, and that is something that just isn't being taught to people anymore. Nowadays, people seem to avoid responsibility as much as possible.

@Squ: What's your point? Do Europeans think that Americans all walk around with guns on their hips like movie cowboys or something? They don't, in fact that is illegal in almost every state. The only people that carry firearms do so through legal concealment and are the people who feel comfortable with them and are knowledgeable about their use. It doesn't really matter, though, does it - your country most likely doesn't give you the right to even own one, let alone wear it.

Please don't mistake my love for freedom as some kind of fascist desire to have everyone pointing guns at everyone. I just believe that people should be given as much freedom as possible, and that responsibility and the value of human life should be instilled in every citizen in order to protect freedoms which have the potential to harm others. The people who started the United States, while not without their flaws, did an uncannily good job at setting up a foundation where people are given a large amount of freedom and are held responsible for their actions. It's this modern sense that the government knows best and that it should take over people's personal responsibilities that is very dangerous to freedom, and was something that America's founders were very familiar with.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #24
BiggBirdd
BiggBirdd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,131
Thanks (Given): 354
Thanks (Received): 4119
Link(s):
 
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

I bet the batman premiere would have gone differently if a couple of people had a gun with them. Had 1 person with a CC permit been near the guy he would have been shot and it would have saved lives.

Last edited by BiggBirdd; 07-23-2012 at 12:36 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - cdizzle thanked for this post
Old 07-23-2012   #25
MS6
MS6's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,688
Thanks (Given): 1297
Thanks (Received): 979
I understand your point, BiggBirdd.
I understand the history of firearms lying in private hands in the U.S.

I just wouldn't feel free while carrying a gun while being at Cinema with friends.

Fear as a hidden companion. This is how terrorism works. Not by the real number of killed people, not by the statistical
risk (see smoking, car accidents...) but by the amount of fear and paranoia carried on in the minds of thousands of people.

Don't get me wrong: I do martial arts, I do know how to fire a gun but I wouldn't carry it around a thousand times
for the one time when I need it. Maybe I'll regret that one day but: so what?

Link(s):
 
You're quoting a GOA fact sheet there, hard to rate credibility for me.
How would one get those figures?
The wording instantly brought the movie 'Law Abiding Citizen' to my mind.
Viligantism=not any good for me.

Link(s):
 
To add another subjunctive: we would have had a hero.
But firing at the attacker (wearing a bullet proof vest) would have attracted the fire towards him and his family/friends.
He had a shotgun, a glock and a AR-15 assault rife (pure luck - it jammed).

For me carrying a gun with me at Cinema is just as absurd as wearing a bullet proof vest wherever I go.

I must admit that I'm a bit to selfish to be that hero.
I don't know whether someone in the audience had a gun, I just know they brought a few months old baby and a few 6-7 year old kids.

<sarcasm>
But Cinema experience could indeed improve if all the people using cellphones, making noises with their sweets/popcorn or talking loudly had to fear a headshot right from behind...
</sarcasm>

Last edited by MS6; 07-23-2012 at 09:25 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #26
legg
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 663
Thanks (Given): 55
Thanks (Received): 166
@cdizzle your knowledge of europe and european culture equates to the square root of zero...i.e. fuckall. you're just another badly informed american, incapable of seeing beyond the US border. thanks for playing.

Last edited by legg; 07-23-2012 at 09:27 AM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #27
Bobba_the_Hut
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 328
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 69
Come-on, please let's not let this descend into personal abuse. There's some interesting info here. Please keep it civil.

I do think that, the all too regular, mass shooting events distort the debate over gun control. A tiny fraction of the people who die through gun crime, die in mass shootings. Yet whenever there is one, there's a knee jerk reaction. Every year far more people die through stupid accidents, moments of rage etc. than through mass killings.

But I'm going to be charitable and assume that if some citizen had had a gun in the cinema, they might have had a chance of stopping it before it began. I think this is a big *if*. What would be the downside of having this level of armed-ness is the general population? I think you'd have 100's, maybe 1,000's of innocent people dead every year, for just the reason MS6 mentioned - people would get shot for rustling their popcorn. Is this a price worth paying to have a *chance* of stopping the occasional mass shooting? Of course not. I know the gun lobby likes to think that all gun carrying citizens are cool calm and collected models of virtue (ie cops), but that's not the case. Most people are idiots. Give them a gun and they don't become responsible - they're just an idiot with a gun. I'd rather not share the streets with them.

Arguing about rights is facile. I don't have the right to burn down random buildings, no matter how much I want to. I've never particularly missed having this right (a few times, maybe). When you accept the compromises that come from living in a civilized society you accept that some ‘rights’ have to be given up for the common good. If you don’t want to accept this them Siberia is a good option. Very little gun control there.

I often hear it said that small-arms will protect you from government tyranny. I can’t see that guns are the best form of protection myself, and I don’t fancy your chances against tanks and apc’s, if it ever comes down to it. If all the Jews in Germany had had bolt-action rifles and handguns would it have helped? I think most of them would just have died in gun-battles in the 1930’s, rather than in concentration camps in the 1940’s. You’d be much better off sorting your press and electoral system if you want to prevent government tyranny.

I lived in the US for 4 years (small nice city in California). The rest of the time I’ve lived in the UK. Just as many idiots/crimms in both. The main difference was there are hardly any guns in the UK. I feel safer in the UK, but that may be cultural prejudice. Gun crime tends to make the national news in the UK, because it’s so rare. Can’t say the same for the US. There are many things I love about the US, and I imagine I’ll live there again at some stage, but the gun culture is not one of them. Sort it aaaawt!

Last edited by Bobba_the_Hut; 07-23-2012 at 04:23 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
2 Thanks, 0 . - rarukufan, MS6 thanked for this post
Old 07-23-2012   #28
squ
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 759
Thanks (Given): 456
Thanks (Received): 238
I'm pretty sure i could go out and buy a gun. They do sell 'em here, at least they're in shops and have price tags on 'em, though I have never inquired.

My point is that to own a gun to me is not a comfortable idea, I would feel more comfortable wearing a burka. Perhaps not so much in France, where they are banned. No not guns, burkas. Guns are freely available, no license upto a certain bore, don't ask me what.

One owns a gun for one reason only, and that is to shoot it at someone, unless you're a hunter, and this isn't about animal rights, at least not directly.

I'm not comfortable with that thought, I doubt many europeans are. If you are not prepared to kill someone what's the point? If you are not prepared to wear one to the cinema, what's the point ?
You think that the person you are going to use it against is going to walk into your bedroom and say "Here I am"?

Get better locks, put a rose bush under the bloody window and get rid of the fuckin' gun.

Unless you are that person miles from anyone in Idaho .. And that is different, make sure the dogs are still able to bark.
__________________
moin, moin ...

Last edited by squ; 07-23-2012 at 01:37 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #29
BiggBirdd
BiggBirdd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,131
Thanks (Given): 354
Thanks (Received): 4119
I have been in a gun related incident 2 times. I walked home both times. One time I stopped 2 thugs from breaking into a house across the street. It was 4 in the morning and I was loading up the truck to go hunting. Bad day to pick that house. Second I had a gun and was about to put the guy out of his misery and he made a mistake and I took him out without the gun. That event I and my GF were abducted at gunpoint and she was about to be raped. I on regular occasions go into less than desirable parts of town. The police aren't there to help you. There is no one but yourself to depend on. I have grown up with guns and they're a tool no different than a screwdriver or a hammer. Those that cry for no guns have never been in the thick of things because if you ever are 1 time you'll see and feel differently. While it's not a guarantee for the best to happen it does increase your odds quite a bit.

And every time something like this happens I just point out 2 of the worst mass murders in the US were done with an airplane and a Ryder Rental truck. Do we stop flying and stop renting trucks? No it's unfortunately the price to pay for a free society. I'll take my chances with it over the alternative.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #30
squ
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 759
Thanks (Given): 456
Thanks (Received): 238
Ok, would you still scream at the politicians to let everyone keep their guns, because to say no means that in some way that is still a mystery to me, your freedoms are lessened?
You think that here in europe our freedoms are any less than yours?
I can't see it.
__________________
moin, moin ...
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #31
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
@MS6: Most of what you are talking about is your own personal opinion, which is fine. But just because you wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a gun, does that mean no one should have the right to? Admittedly, the statistics that BiggBirdd posted are difficult to support with much accuracy, but the fact remains that guns save lives in this country more often than they take them.

@legg: Actually, I know a fair amount about European culture first hand - at least England, Ireland and France (and not just vacations, mind you). You, however, seem to suffer from that European sense of false superiority. Please enlighten me how anything I have said is incorrect or inaccurate. I see a lot of Europeans claiming superiority over North American and Asian countries, but I have never seen one who could provide evidence for this superiority. As far as not being able to see beyond the border of the US, keep in mind that several European countries wouldn't even count as a state in the US. We have shopping malls bigger and more populated than entire European cities. I'm not saying that bigger is better, but people often fail to realize that the sheer number of people we are talking about is vastly greater, and with more people comes more unpredictability. I personally love the parts and culture of Europe I have been fortunate to experience, and there is a lot that North America could learn from European countries - but blind faith in the government and the idea that giving up freedoms provides safety is not one of those lessons.

@Bobba_the_Hutt: Everything you said about not needing certain rights and giving up rights for the common good is exactly the type of mentality that offends me so much. This idea that people shouldn't be given responsibility stems from people wanting to control everything you do. As for the WWII scenario, I'm sure any Holocaust survivor (and all of those who lost their lives) would tell you that if they could have fought back, they would have gladly died fighting than in a camp. The gun culture isn't what needs sorting out, it's the culture that other people's lives aren't as valuable as yours and the glorification of violent crime. I don't feel that the right to own guns is related to that.

@Squ: I agree that if you aren't prepared and trained to use a gun, don't own one. But many people are, and find the dangers of owning one worth the benefits. No one forces anyone who is uncomfortable with guns to own one. Common sense home defense stuff like solid locks and hard to access windows are great, but they could very well be used in addition to having a personal firearm - should a person choose to. It doesn't matter if you live far from other people, or down the block from a police station - a police car can't outrun a bullet and most police, unfortunately, are there to solve crimes after they happen. Of course your freedoms are lessened if one day you have the right to own a gun, and the next day you no longer have that right. I wouldn't say that Europeans have less total freedom than Americans, but the right to own handguns for personal defense is certainly one that most Europeans don't have. The fact is, most Europeans just trust their governments more than most Americans are comfortable with.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #32
Bobba_the_Hut
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 328
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 69
Owning a gun is obviously 100% about the fact that other people's lives aren't as valuable as yours. Otherwise, why shoot a mugger?

cdizzle, if you're really not prepared to give up certain rights for the common good, then please don't visit my country again, as I'm afraid you're a liability. Which is a shame, because you otherwise seem an inteligent and articulate human being. I can think of many examples of how you give up freedoms in return for safety. Do you disagree with the concept of income tax, or jury service, military conscription? All these cases you give up personal freedoms (time or money) in return for communal safety. Do you have those things in the US? I'm sure I was paying something to the IRS.

I mentioned the holocaust simply to point out that one of the most oft-used reasons for keeping guns simply would never work today or in the future (maybe 200 years ago?). If I thought there was the slightest chance that the government in my country would do such as thing (holocaust 2.0), I wouldn't be living here. It's not cowardice, or running away, it's common sense. I'd have more respect for the gun-lobby if they were just honest about why they want to keep guns - they like guns, and like shooting - fair enough, I do too. Pretending they protect you from a 'tyrannical government' just sounds like you're living in a delusion, and it's a delusion that if anything makes tyrannical government more likely. I'd be surprised if the US is still around in its current form in 50 years - which would be a great shame.


Last edited by Bobba_the_Hut; 07-24-2012 at 03:01 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012   #33
cdizzle
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 686
Thanks (Given): 399
Thanks (Received): 286
Your first point is valid, Bobba. Indeed, when someone makes the conscious decision to harm another person the value of their life drops considerably. Do you truly feel that the well-being of a murderer or rapist is as important as that of someone who values human life?

If I chose to visit another country, I would do so with an acceptance of that country's laws without trying to impose my own beliefs or ideals on that country. Why can't countries outside of the US allow us to have our own ideals and beliefs without feeling they should impose theirs on us? As a matter of fact, I strongly disagree with the concept of income tax in the manner it is applied in the US, as well as the manner that the jury system is currently set up (though I don't see how that is giving up any rights), and the vast majority of this country disagrees with military drafts (we don't have an obligation to serve in the US, and there hasn't been a draft since the 1960s).

It is a mistake to rule out the power of a citizenry which has the power to protect itself. Just because modern military technologies have advanced significantly and small arms are not as much of a threat, doesn't mean that personal firearms don't help protect people. If modern military technology was the only deciding factor in a war situation, then the conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan would have went significantly different. Even if it is just a factor of it being less convenient to impose strict regulations on the people, that helps more than just a bunch of unarmed citizens who can be bullied over the littlest things.

I'm not sure which country you live in, nor does it matter, but if you think that any group of powerful people is beyond taking advantage of those with less power you are gravely mistaken. Supporting our countries laws and the rights they give us isn't a delusion. I'd very much like to find out how thinking that an armed populace is a benefit to protecting its rights makes tyrannical government more likely.

As to your last statement, you may be right - and it is the thing that many people fear. This country's government has lasted longer in its current state than that of any other country, but the increasing sentiment that the government knows best and we should be influenced by the feelings of other countries may very well be its demise.

With all this being said, I would like to point out that I don't own or carry a gun. I have, however, known many people - like BiggBird - who have used guns to protect people they care about. I personally just like to go shooting sometimes - like Bobba mentioned - and feel that freedom and responsibility should take precedence over a babysitter government.

Last edited by cdizzle; 07-23-2012 at 10:22 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012   #34
notagain_uk
notagain_uk's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 578
Thanks (Given): 248
Thanks (Received): 343
Scary thread.....
Happiness is a warm gun....I think not.

Glad I don't live with the threat to my FREEDOM of everyone having the right to bear arms.

Scarry people quoting statistics of how few people are killed in mass murders misses the point that there would be no need for these statistics if you removed the the source. Idiots with guns by right!

American attitude versus European....Gun hoe versus healthy respect.....YOU SHOULD fear something that can take away life in a milli-second.

Owning a gun is nothing to do with freedom.

I do know how to use a gun; I have no desire to OWN one.
is Online  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012   #35
tarzan
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 627
Thanks (Given): 384
Thanks (Received): 208
I thank Eye for this wonderful thread about which I don't give a fucking care, if you don't mind my saying so.

This is the weirdest thread arounf here in a very long time. There are a zillion sites for/against gun control where this kind of discussion can be carried-out till hell freezes over.

Now back to our regular programming, shall we?
__________________
Acclaimed CGP Celebrity. Winner of the Intelligent Discussions Award.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012   #36
Bobba_the_Hut
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 328
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 69
After many years of trying the alternatives, I now prefer to debate this topic with fellow 3d artists with a relaxed attitude to piracy. No one has yet called be a butt-rapped limey tax-slave (I'm not), or called into question the quality of my teeth (fair - good). CGPersia rocks!

I completely share the dislike for a babby-sitter government, but if there was a group of individuals who wanted to create a tyranny in a country like the USA (far from beyound he realms of possibility) I'm sure they'd need to be clever about it. The way I'd do it would be to encourage lots of scarry sounding fringe groups - like the gun lobby, cults etc. That way they could bring in loads of federal agencies, FBI, AFT, TSA to combat the 'threat'.

It's catch 22 I know, but have you ever thought that by arming yourselves you might be playing into their hands?

Last edited by Bobba_the_Hut; 07-24-2012 at 02:31 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #37
dividebyzero
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 97
Thanks (Given): 28
Thanks (Received): 343
Link(s):
 
Quite the contrary. The 2nd Amendment was enacted to give the citizens the right, and the responsibility, to protect itself against the U.S. government.


Link(s):
 
I've been the victim of a home invasion (armed burglary) and if it hadn't been for the fact that I acted first, me and mine would be dead instead of the criminals. I would never think of going out and killing someone for the hell of it, but if someone puts themselves in situations like mine, they deserve what they get.

Incidentally, disarming honest people won't keep the criminals from being criminals. There's still gun crime in countries that have bans on firearm ownership.

Link(s):
 
Income tax at a state level, absolutely. The Feds were never supposed to be allowed to tax anything except businesses.

Jury service if and ONLY if it's voluntary. The idea that I can be forced to be a juror is appalling. Same for military service.

Link(s):
 
So if everyone is disarmed then they have no recourse except to be bent over. People in power want more of it and will go to great lengths to keep it. China is a prime example.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #38
dave793
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8
Thanks (Given): 0
Thanks (Received): 0
OMG get a life will you guys
I live in New Zealand and here your allowed a rifle but you have to sit a license for it and the only hand guns here are owened by pistol club people and they have to get a special license , plus rifles have to be locked away in a secure area in the house
we don't need to have a weapon to make us justify our freedom and protect our rights and families
your country is no different to ours , we have violence,gangs,rape,drugs,smuggling,poverty,murder s etc etc like all the world has. and if you think that by having weapons in your draws on your belt its going to stop people think again all the laws are designed to protect the criminal , say you shoot them in the leg you get sued for loose of income , it may say you have the right to bare arms but think back why that was , it's to do with the British invasion isn't it, who's invading you now hmmmmm you think your going to shoot the nuclear rockets that are flying towards your cities um nope
You guys need to get a bit of the New Zealand attitude , instead of standing around trying to justify everything you do ,( just look at your tv reality programs your all stating how your doing it to prove your the best , for your family ,for your state , bla bla bla , why don't you just say like New Zealands would ( sounds like fun what the hell i'll give it a go, win or loose it will be fun ) get on with it and do it . You guys have gotten so bad at beating your chests but when push comes to shove you all sit there justifying every little thought you have then have meetings about meetings . You also complain about your rights , yet you will quite happily back stab the other person to get what you think you deserve
Your entire Coulter is based on trying to prove its the best in the world , when your no different to the rest of the world
As for your government , its been screwing you over for hundreds of years , like any other government there all in power for one reason for there own needs , think of governments as big companies and your the work force its that simple, you work for them by paying taxes , is there really anything you get in return , like all bosses they mold you into there way of working for them it's all about control , even your gun law was originally designed to meet there needs not yours ( the right to bare arms ) just encase the British tried to invade again they would have more people to scarifies as simple as that ( I'm guessing they want to take the weapons away now because they wish to get back the control of your country so when you finally wake up and realize that your country is going to go into a massive depression idiots wont go crazy and run rampant in packs shooting and killing people for food. America has done it's dash time to pay the piper there is nothing you can do , If you do the run to New Zealand just remember kiwis aren't into your justifying crap ( lol guns no guns who gives a shit , they have caused nothing but death and destruction )
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #39
George1016
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 753
Thanks (Given): 638
Thanks (Received): 308
Link(s):
 
With 4+ million people and around 100 murders a year in NZ, owning a gun is a waste of money unless you need one to hunt. NZ sounds like a nice country but I disagree,
our countries are very different.

Link(s):
 
last time I checked a nuclear rocket has
never flown toward my city. I think I would have noticed if one had.

Link(s):
 
Tried it, I like winning. and Dancing with the Stars.
Link(s):
 
Anne Coulter the political commentator? She is good. Kinda sexy in that milf/friends mom kinda way too. Do you mean our culture? Maybe since you view us as the best you find yourself justifying your own thoughts in our actions? Then you can make ridiculous statements about a countries entire population on a warez board based on the newest season of Big Brother.
Link(s):
 
I do enjoy driving on roads.
Our military is a comforting thought.
It's even pretty neat when they put bad guys in jail.
In fact many people receive far to much from the Gov't.(a conversation for another day)
Link(s):
 
Yes Dave, 300 million people will flock to NZ to pay the piper. (all this time I never knew he was from New Zealand, who would've thought?) We will be sure to be mindful of your justification rules, and your disdain for reality TV.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #40
kole
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 920
Thanks (Given): 151
Thanks (Received): 188
Wow u amrecians are really crazy, and best of all you give yourself right to tell other countries what to do. Your backyard is in obvious mess.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #41
cenuij
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 33
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 15
The right to have a gun means that the burglar, mugger & murderer also has the right to have a gun. A little bit of cyclic error!

You should always be allowed to defend yourself and your family, but i am happy for the majority of fire arms to be carried by some police and the armed forces (UK). Both have to have specific permission to carry the weapon and in the case of the police, they have to get permission to use the weapon first and then account for every round. I trust them, not the government. But if your worried about the government controlling how you think or behave, then vote them out. Simple.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #42
BiggBirdd
BiggBirdd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,131
Thanks (Given): 354
Thanks (Received): 4119
Link(s):
 
Yep it's hideous here. Guess that's why everyone wants in. And we let 'em in. Which is exactly why you need a gun to protect you.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #43
kasper77
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 399
Thanks (Given): 6
Thanks (Received): 132
When I read some of the posts in this thread I am both ROFL and seriously worried because it is just amazing how dumb some of you people really are.
Last I checked the US was still the super power and the best place on Earth to live. There are a few small countries that have a better life quality in general but it is a far stretch to compare them to the mighty US and its cultural diversity etc and the sheer size of its population. The right to arms is absolutely great and if some SOB wants to mix it with me I will blow them away real quick.
In the following scenario most of you would be dead for sure while I would at least have a fighting chance.
THUGS enter my house and want to rob and hurt. I reach for my gun and shoot. END OF DISCUSSION FOOLS.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #44
cenuij
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 33
Thanks (Given): 10
Thanks (Received): 15
Best place to live...if you like people breaking in and shooting you, what was i thinking. Im on my way over now, get me some of that quality life.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #45
kapten
Moderator
kapten's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,253
Thanks (Given): 1534
Thanks (Received): 2203
Link(s):
 
1. Yes it's a superpower. Greatest place? Please tell that to the large population of poor people without food or healthcare in the US. Tell that to the uneducated people trying to make up their mind on whom to vote for in the upcoming presidential election (note "whom", not which politics, since it seems to be more important for the population to decide which fairytale the new president believes in rather than which politics he/she will have)
2. Mighty? Let's take a look at China, they own MUCH of the money the US use. (I guess you think of weaponry and military strength when you say "mighty". Well, have it come to your attention that many countries have nukes? Ground, naval and air troops and material is useless if a real war would start against USA and any nation more sophisticated than farmers in the middle east).
3. Violence is never a good option when you try to solve anything within your own country. By requesting a right for the criminal idiot to have weapons you pretty much calling your nation a criminal nation with no order, like the people in question are too out of control.
And if you think it's good to have guns to "protect" yourself against the government, I just have to call you an idiot. What do you think your little handgun will do against the 30-mil M230 on an Apache helicopter, a tank, a cruise missile, nuclear submarine, war ships, artillery etc etc? If the government wants to kill you, you die, no matter how many guns you have in your closet.
Do you really think that crime rate will decrease if you have more guns floating around among the population?

I think that guns should be allowed under a strict license (like how you get a driver license) and that right can easily be revoked if the individual has committed a crime or is mentally unstable etc.

4. Don't you wish your government thought just like you? Look at the following scenario: You get caught for "stealing" software and your government shoots you, end of discussion fool.
Or even better, think of Autodesk-staffeln ending your discussion.

After all the bloody things you have said you still keep calling people "dumb". Oh the irony.


[/RANT]

Last edited by kapten; 09-13-2012 at 02:06 PM.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
3 Thanks, 0 . - seedstyler, cgmastaa, bedtimebear thanked for this post
Old 09-13-2012   #46
George1016
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 753
Thanks (Given): 638
Thanks (Received): 308
A couple quick facts

-In the US a felon cannot own a gun. Legally anyway.

-Some states do require permits, some do not.

-In order to carry one around in public you must have a concealed carry permit.

-In order to purchase a handgun a waiting period/BG check is undergone before you can walk out with one.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2012   #47
kapten
Moderator
kapten's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,253
Thanks (Given): 1534
Thanks (Received): 2203
Link(s):
 
Yes I know all that.
But I think that the license shall be required for all states, and should be way harder to get (obviously with a reasonable age restriction too). The number of guns "on the street" should be reduced.

What I think is that only a handful of people should be able to live up to the requirements needed to own and use a gun.
I won't comment on this anymore, it's not any of my business since I'm not an US citizen.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
1 Thanks, 0 . - cgmastaa thanked for this post
Old 09-13-2012   #48
Bobba_the_Hut
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 328
Thanks (Given): 22
Thanks (Received): 69
Good to see a bit of sense from Kapten

Kasper, the sad thing is, you will likely never realise that living in a civilised country means the chances of armed thugs breaking into your home to steal from you/rape is virtually zero. How easily you forget that guns are great for offence, but not so good for defence. Or do you sit there with your gun in your lap at all times?

If you think your small arms are the only thing stopping your government repressing you then the US is in an even worse state than I thought. How tiring it must be to live in fear at all times.

The US a superpower? Not really anymore. It has all the might it could ever need, and more besides, but the political will to use it is not there because all the political capital and good-will has been squandered over the past 50 years pissing off the rest of the world. I like the US, and think its demise will be a bad thing for the world (2020, at best 2050?) The sad thing is people like you are hastening the fall.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012   #49
ungraph
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
Thanks (Given): 0
Thanks (Received): 0
Link(s):
 
Funny you critique CNN for being biased when FOX News is nothing but social-conservative Republican nuts.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2012   #50
bedtimebear
bedtimebear's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 410
Thanks (Given): 177
Thanks (Received): 165
Peace is the most powerful weapon in Universe. Only the peace prevails among all destructive things.
is Offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search