Controversial Topics

[PandaMan]

Yeah totally. I mean if that's the logic than sure. Cause you know like because there has been so few nukes dropped we don't really need to worry controlling them or who gets them any more. And identifing who are the crazies will work because you could totally predict human nature, It's not like humans are naturally violent or anything. And don't forget how is easy it is to kill people with knifes. They are just as dangerous as guns, cause one knife can kill 20 people in an instance, just like a gun. And protecting our selves from an opressive goverment will work, since we have automatic weapons and they have tanks and smart bombs. And what about the second amendment!? Our laws are not supposed to be adaptable so we can do the logical thing for that time, that's ridiculous.

Who said anything about nukes? That is a terrible comparison and you should feel bad for making to be honest. I don't think that you quite realize the point that I was trying to make about the mental illness issues. Increasing the information that can be sent to the government for background check information deceases the probability of said crimes. For example, the Batman movie mass shooting could have been prevented had the psychiatrist reported that the shooter was mentally ill, there was enough information there that he would have been barred from purchasing said firearms.

Sarcasm is not a good argument. All it does is make is seem like you are insulting me because you can't come up with a good counter.

You are right, knives are not as dangerous as guns. Everybody knows that. The guns are only so dangerous because there are rarely ever any people with other guns around them. The police cannot be there instantly. Even a man with a knife would be able to kill and maim many people before the police could arrive to stop him.

Did you not read my post? The government would hardly use its entire arsenal against its own populace. The military is made up of US citizens with families that are citizens. Many would not fight against their own people, but some would. The government could not afford to lose any more of its workers, soliders, or farmers. They also would not raze their own lands that they NEED.

I don't even understand what you are trying to say in your last two sentences.

 

[TrickierHades]

I am not using a comparison I am just saying your logic there does not make sense: Since not a lot of people use this dangerous weapon we should not care who gets or try to make sure people don't use it.
I actually do agree with you on the mental illness thing but it is not a solid solution by itself which you make it out to be.
Also you are right that I shouldn't have used sarcasm, sorry. It is late and I am tired so at first I was a little cranky but I am thinking clearer now.
I am not suggesting it would use its whole arsenal I am just suggesting that why would they care about your guns when they have such a vast amount of resources and can neutralize you so fast. And when I say vast I mean much more than anything you or I would have.
And if I am planning to kill you and I have a gun and I know you probably have a gun do you think that would deter me at all? I have a gun to defend my self! Woohpdy doo! guess what!? I am still ether gonna try to kill you or make sure I have a better gun to kill you. You having a gun makes no difference because I am still a murderer who wants to murder. There will still be violence.
Also you mentioned the second amendment, in which I was assuming you don't want to be changed. Your logic was that what will happen next if we change this!? I am trying to say that things need to change in the law as time goes on. I am saying that because one thing changes doesn't mean everything will go to shit. We need to adapt our ruling on firearms because we have the largest amount of gun murders. Guns make make murdering a lot easier so let's just regulate it more so people can still have guns just not every single high tec death machine. Handgun? sure. Hunting rifle? sure. 30 round magazine automatic rifle? Why would you need such a dangerous item?
I mentioned knives cause you compared knives with guns and explosives.
that nuke thing was me trying to show how ridiculous I thought that logic was. And it may have been insulting but I did not mean it to be.

 

[PandaMan]

I am not using a comparison I am just saying your logic there does not make sense: Since not a lot of people use this dangerous weapon we should not care who gets or try to make sure people don't use it.

Okay, but that is not what I was talking about. Nukes are not quite the best thing to use, so I'll use, for example, a fully automatic machine gun, any type, it doesn't REALLY matter. They are extremely expensive and take a long time to get (paperwork) and are highly regulated. Because of this, legally acquired ones are extremely rarely used in crimes (I don't think that there have been any, but I could be wrong). The ones that are used are almost always illegally acquired and often are not even from the US. I'm not saying that we should just give everybody a gun, but that we should not prevent mentally stable people from having them. It is impossible to remove guns from our society, both legal and illegal ones. But if the legal ones were to be removed and regulated moreso, then the criminals would almost positively still have their already illegal guns leaving the law-abiding citizens defenseless against said criminals.

I actually do agree with you on the mental illness thing but it is not a solid solution by itself which you make it out to be.
Also you are right that I shouldn't have used sarcasm, sorry. It is late and I am tired so at first I was a little cranky but I am thinking clearer now.

I didn't mean that as a catch all, but simply as a step that would have prevented many crimes, not just mass shootings, had it been in effect at the time. Obviously people can still slip through the cracks, and it doesn't catch the people with just evil intent, but how else can you stop them other than eliminating guns from the picture as a whole?

I am not suggesting it would use its whole arsenal I am just suggesting that why would they care about your guns when they have such a vast amount of resources and can neutralize you so fast. And when I say vast I mean much more than anything you or I would have.

Obviously it has more than one person. You are operating on the presumption that nobody in the military would defect and refuse to fight their own brothers. There would be mass outrage at first, and then the stealing of military equipment. Also, how would the military know who is a militant and who is a civilian, they can't just go around and massacre everybody. Sure they have a vast amount, but it is a limited amount and they would need to carry out their plan extremely fast otherwise they would lose support before anything else of significance could be done and it would be over before it even started.

And if I am planning to kill you and I have a gun and I know you probably have a gun do you think that would deter me at all? I have a gun to defend my self! Woohpdy doo! guess what!? I am still ether gonna try to kill you or make sure I have a better gun to kill you. You having a gun makes no difference because I am still a murderer who wants to murder. There will still be violence.

No. That is the extreme case. If I have a gun, and you know it, you will be much more inclined to choose somebody else if not just stop what you are doing in general. It levels the playing field. If you don't know that I have a gun and you attack me, I have the advantage of surprise and it is an even playing field. If there were no guns, and small built man would not be able to defend himself from a bigger attacker, but with guns that is changed. It levels the playing field across the board.

Also you mentioned the second amendment, in which I was assuming you don't want to be changed. Your logic was that what will happen next if we change this!? I am trying to say that things need to change in the law as time goes on. I am saying that because one thing changes doesn't mean everything will go to shit. We need to adapt our ruling on firearms because we have the largest amount of gun murders. Guns make make murdering a lot easier so let's just regulate it more so people can still have guns just not every single high tec death machine. Handgun? sure. Hunting rifle? sure. 30 round magazine automatic rifle? Why would you need such a dangerous item?

Automatic rifles - very difficult to get, legally, more legislation is pointless, rarely are legally acquired ones used in crimes.
30 round magazines - One can reload a pre-loaded magazine within seconds (thank you for not using clip), it is a major inconvenience for all law abiding citizens, also military has them, we wouldn't blah blah, etc

So why are you saying that Handguns are okay, but scary "military-style" "assault" rifles are not? Handguns make up nearly all of gun crime across the nation. I can find the statistics if you would like, but you can find them yourself too.

Military style - they are referring to semi-automatic firearms, military-style is almost always truly select fire (ie automatic and semi-automatic capabilities)
assault rifle - pistol grip, black, etc. This really doesn't even do anything.

One could also argue that our largest amount of gun murders is due to the culture of the United States, glorified violence in movies, TV, video games, books, the news, the media, etc.

I'm getting tired now lol.

 

[TrickierHades]

"So why are you saying that Handguns are okay, but scary "military-style" "assault" rifles are not? Handguns make up nearly all of gun crime across the nation. I can find the statistics if you would like, but you can find them yourself too."
cause there needs to be a middle ground. I we can't just take away every single persons gun. also I am trying to say that I know that legally it is hard to get a gun so we need to crack down on enforcement, which includes getting tighter control on illegal transportation and selling of guns.
Also when I talk about that military stuff I am just trying to say that the goverment could easily stop a rebel group of the united states or stop rioting.
The military style guns thing: Because it is basic sense! If you want a hunting rifle ok! it is much easier to kill a person with a sub machine gun or an assualt rifle than a hunting rifle or specific kinds of pistols.I am saying there is no point to having something so dangerous in a normal everyday life. Gun museum? sure. Why does this family dad need this?
Also, level the playing field? But what if you are a murderer?! want a gun? ok I guess I just have to assume you want it to protect yourself from a guy with a gun. you couldn't possibly be that guy who wants the gun to kill. Also a murderer is a murderer, who cares how extreme of a case it is, it shouldn't happen and it deffinently shouldn't be made easier to do.

I am getting tired of this so please let me point out what I think:

1. Guns should be harder to get legally.
2. We need to have better enforcement of the law so getting guns illegally is harder to do and harder to not get caught.
3. get the unnecessary automatic weapons of the streets. No good could ever come of giving any civillian a gun like that.
4. people shouldn't need to carry a weapon to level the playing field.

And lastly do not say a thing about media and violence. People are not gonna become a murderer just after watching an episode of c.s.i. If they do there was something wrong with them already and that show had nothing to do with it. I started shooting fake people on a television screen since I was 4. I am like to think that I am mentally healthy and that I am not gonna go murder some

 

[PandaMan]

"So why are you saying that Handguns are okay, but scary "military-style" "assault" rifles are not? Handguns make up nearly all of gun crime across the nation. I can find the statistics if you would like, but you can find them yourself too."
cause there needs to be a middle ground. I we can't just take away every single persons gun. also I am trying to say that I know that legally it is hard to get a gun so we need to crack down on enforcement, which includes getting tighter control on illegal transportation and selling of guns.

No, I mean why not regulate those more often. I'm going to attribute some of this is tiredness. Tighter control on illegal transportation and selling of guns definitely needs to be a priority before we regulate the access that law-abiding citizens have to firearms.

Also when I talk about that military stuff I am just trying to say that the goverment could easily stop a rebel group of the united states or stop rioting.

Depends upon the scale of rebellion and how the government responds. It is a very delicate situation that would ultimately involved many nations due to the role the US plays in the world.

The military style guns thing: Because it is basic sense! If you want a hunting rifle ok! it is much easier to kill a person with a sub machine gun or an assualt rifle than a hunting rifle or specific kinds of pistols.I am saying there is no point to having something so dangerous in a normal everyday life. Gun museum? sure. Why does this family dad need this?

Hunting rifles are "more dangerous" than assault rifles.... Also sub machine guns are automatic and rarely used in crimes. Hunting rifles use larger calibers, have longer distances, and are more precise, usually, but do not look as scary. These so called assault rifles can be used in hunting as well, boar, deer, etc.

Also, level the playing field? But what if you are a murderer?! want a gun? ok I guess I just have to assume you want it to protect yourself from a guy with a gun. you couldn't possibly be that guy who wants the gun to kill. Also a murderer is a murderer, who cares how extreme of a case it is, it shouldn't happen and it deffinently shouldn't be made easier to do.

If there are guns out there, one committing a crime will get one regardless of the legality. A law-abiding citizen should be allowed to have a gun in case they are attacked in some manner by someone in which he is in fear for his life.
I am getting tired of this so please let me point out what I think:

1. Guns should be harder to get legally.
2. We need to have better enforcement of the law so getting guns illegally is harder to do and harder to not get caught.
3. get the unnecessary automatic weapons of the streets. No good could ever come of giving any civillian a gun like that.
4. people shouldn't need to carry a weapon to level the playing field.

1. No, not harder to get legally, but maybe harder to get illegally, and there could be more restrictions on what type of people can own guns.
2. Yes.
3. Pointless, the only ones used in crimes (very few) are illegally present. There are also no new automatic weapons present.
4. Shouldn't, but often that is not that case.

And lastly do not say a thing about media and violence. People are not gonna become a murderer just after watching an episode of c.s.i. If they do there was something wrong with them already and that show had nothing to do with it. I started shooting fake people on a television screen since I was 4. I am like to think that I am mentally healthy and that I am not gonna go murder some

Obviously that isn't the case, but it can influence people to think that it is cool, which can cause mentally unstable people to want to do things like that. I was more referring to the glorification of mass murders and going down in history, see "High Score List". Yeah, you and me too, but that isn't everybody.

It isn't just the guns, it isn't just crazy people, it obviously is something else, but we hopefully will find out with the CDC's upcoming research into it, presuming that the proposed legislation or executive orders or whatever it is, too tired to remember, gets passed.

 

[TrickierHades]

Every time we make a response I see we are agreeing about more of the same things a little bit once made clearer. And no person that is above 9 years old can be convinced that killing could be alright just by seeing an action movie. I am pretty sure that most humans are competent enough and mentally healthy enough to know that murder is not "cool". btw that "something else" is called human nature. We have been murdering and killing and slaughtering for thousands of years, but we have gotten smarter and realised that it is wrong and detremental to ourselves.
The reason I put #3 is because it doesn't matter that such a few amount uses them. What matters is that they were able to use them at all. It is not pointless.Everything matters. Even the small stuff. Especially the small stuff that can lead to big problems. Also I am not saying you can't have a gun to defend yourself, I am saying getting more guns for oursleves is not a proper solution.
I know a murderer will try to get a gun legally or not so let's make sure he can't ether way. I know this is no simple task but we need to make sure both ways have something done about them.

I think guns in general are bad. If a person wants one to go hunting that is acceptable but that does not mean we should give one to him willy nilly. Humans will always be dangerous and that is why we cannot allow just anyone to get a machine that helps them cause more damage to society in such drastic quickness.

 

[CoreKeyblade]

I am pretty sure that most humans are competent enough and mentally healthy enough to know that murder is not "cool". btw that "something else" is called human nature. We have been murdering and killing and slaughtering for thousands of years, but we have gotten smarter and realised that it is wrong and detremental to ourselves.

Pff, the only thing correct in that statement is that humans have gotten smarter, (and as an ironic twist, stupider at that) everyday newer and more efficient ways of killing are created, we do not have the need to test it out on each other when our governments have big open testing grounds in current 3rd world country battlegrounds (such as Iraq). Hell! The only reason we haven't nuked each other yet is as everyone's unsure of what cards the other player is holding.

I know a murderer will try to get a gun legally or not so let's make sure he can't ether way. I know this is no simple task but we need to make sure both ways have something done about them.

This has and will never happen, and you know this at that.

I think guns in general are bad. If a person wants one to go hunting that is acceptable but that does not mean we should give one to him willy nilly. Humans will always be dangerous and that is why we cannot allow just anyone to get a machine that helps them cause more damage to society in such drastic quickness.

In as much respect as i can afford, you seem to associate, that because America has an "unhealthy" mentality on guns, that this applies to the rest of the human race and they shouldn't be trusted with them, as previously stated, Canada had basicly the same laws on guns as America, yet they haven't had a major gun crime in 20 or so years. Yes humans are naturally violent, but that doesn't mean all humans have the same outlooks...

 

[TrickierHades]

Pff, the only thing correct in that statement is that humans have gotten smarter, (and as an ironic twist, stupider at that) everyday newer and more efficient ways of killing are created, we do not have the need to test it out on each other when our governments have big open testing grounds in current 3rd world country battlegrounds (such as Iraq). Hell! The only reason we haven't nuked each other yet is as everyone's unsure of what cards the other player is holding.

This has and will never happen, and you know this at that.


In as much respect as i can afford, you seem to associate, that because America has an "unhealthy" mentality on guns, that this applies to the rest of the human race and they shouldn't be trusted with them, as previously stated, Canada had basicly the same laws on guns as America, yet they haven't had a major gun crime in 20 or so years. Yes humans are naturally violent, but that doesn't mean all humans have the same outlooks...

wow I think you missed completely what we were talking about. And by the way try not to sound insulting as it just makes you look like a prick which I am sure you are not.

 

[CoreKeyblade]

Name one thing there where I have apparently, "missed the throw" all those points are blunt truths.