Thread: Guns in America
View Single Post
  #29  
Old 12-26-2012, 07:22 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
I agree, civilians really don't need automatics (guns that are rapid-fire like AK-47 rifles and Uzis). That's overkill, but in the meantime, it seems even black-market firearms like these still get in circulation.
You state this as though it would present an uneven conflict between citizens and criminals, though that is statistically inaccurate when one looks at a country like Australia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
School and public shootings tend to spike in trends. I really blame the media for that, as you'll get plenty of imitators who wish to become infamous as well by doing something destructive and murderous. Some people feel doing the right thing will never get the noticed, while doing something wicked and evil like in the case of the Batman shooting and Sandy Hook will get them all over the news. A similar incident occurred when an arsonist set a house on fire and killed two of the firemen that arrived. Again, his face and name got all over the news. We've got to stop giving these kinds of murderers attention and a taste of "dark glory" as I like to call it. It only encourages imitators to do it also.
No, they do not spike in trends. Every year since the ban on assault rifles was lifted, shootings have doubled.

And why blame the media? News channels report murders in Europe and Oceania, why is it that homicide rates are notably smaller in those regions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
The question to ask is what he was doing with the gun during the misfire. Why did he have the safety off, why was it loaded, did he acknowledge where the gun was pointing, and did he take precautions to avoid touching the trigger? And why was the kid in the same room as him? He should have been making these kinds of checks. When you use a powerful and potentially dangerous tool like a chainsaw, yes, you need to make the same kinds of checks and use common sense. I have a feeling this father was still thinking carelessly. If he was handling a gun, it's common sense that child shouldn't have been in the same room, and he should have been careful with the firearm in question. So yes, I blame the father in this situation, not the gun.
You are assuming the average U.S citizen has any training with a firearm under duress, or how to even operate under a life-threatening situation. This is why the average citizen, in my opinion, does not even need a firearm. The majority of them do not even know how to operate one when they really need to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
In truth, I simply detested the way Steak presented his debate without structure and logical association paired with ignorance and reckless assumption. He was asking for that.
His argument, though tactless, was logically straightforward and raised some valid points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Once you start imposing regulations on one thing, it can potentially trickle down to the finer aspects. The other point was to draw upon the fact that not everyone uses guns to commit crimes and murder. And the fact that there are times when a gun can fulfill a role that other tools cannot in certain situations. And not all those roles are for nefarious purposes.
Firearms are weapons. There is only one purpose for a weapon. To kill. No matter the reason, in self-defense or not, that is a nefarious purpose. No one should have to die, and no one should have to defend themselves from that threat. Imposing stronger regulation on firearms would make the populace safer, happier, and more updated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
There's a difference between legitimately questioning national policy and regulatory action from calling America just plain "dumb." Steak did the later, paired with atrocious structure, grammar, and presentation.
The American people as a rule are quite uneducated concerning policy and government. However bluntly Steak put his argument is up for you to quibble with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
That depends on the tactics the invading country used. Air would probably be the most predominant front of assault, but I doubt it would be limited to only that. Sooner or later ground forces would have to be moved in to occupy areas. And as war has proven in the past, it can be brutal on the civilian population. God forbid something like that happen, but if it did, it's nice knowing American civilians would still have means to impose at least some resistance in the form of a final stand with weapons that would at least hold some combative value against whatever invading forces are trying to occupy American territory. Think for a moment how much harder it would be for an invading country to try and occupy Texas as opposed to southern California.
No nation that has the capabilities to overpower the U.S air force would even bother engaging armed civilians. Level the city, bring the people to their knees. Once the trained federal standing army falls, what makes you think civilians will be able to put up a fighting chance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Russia and China say hello. China has an army of over a million soldiers and is currently building up their army and military resources. Why they're doing that is a great question to ask, because I can't think of a good answer to that and still feel secure about it. As for Russia, their defense spending has increased as the US has been imposing cuts (source). Not to mention they've overtaken both the UK and France in terms of global arms spending (source). Now given, they don't spend nearly as much as the U.S. does, but I have a feeling that the U.S. may not be able to keep up this kind of military spending for long, especially with the debt rising. All it takes is one corrupt leader and/or a severe misunderstanding and you've got problems.
China is massing a military for the same reason the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. An effective insurance that other nations will think twice before attacking them. No matter the leader, however, China would not risk destroying the nation that provides most of its wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Again, let's hope it never gets to that.
It won't.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote