Thread: Guns in America
View Single Post
  #33  
Old 12-27-2012, 06:13 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: Guns in America

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
I am not denying the minute significance of the factor. I am implying that it is so irrelevant, that there are more complex reasons as to why the United States has the highest homicide of any developed country.
Then why are you implying that gun restriction will change all that much? What evidence do you have that would suggest that gun regulations would make everything better overnight?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
I am correctly affirming that the average citizen does not know how to function in high duress, under fire, or with their life in immediate danger.
Under what basis? Flight or fight response depends on the individual person. You're not correctly affirming anything, just making generalized assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
Steak's argument was untactful, but it still made valid points.

This, in its entirety, is correct. The National Rifle Association, which is simply a multibillion dollar lobbying group for weapon manufacturers has not worked to establish any protective laws for victims of gun-related homicide, but has instead worked to relax the rules that were originally in place to do so.
And you don't think there are lobbying groups advocating for the regulation on guns and would benefit financially from it? Let criminal law persecute those that commit crimes. Gun regulations essentially target everyone with guns, those that would use them for murder, and those that wouldn't. What if I was trying to complete in the next summer Olympics for the clay pigeon shooting event? Or simply wanted to make a competitive sport out of target practice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
Incorrect. Their usage may be a derivative from what they were designed to do. But, do deny the fact that a firearm is not designed to kill is like arguing that an orange is not a fruit. What I said was totally correct. Hunting is not a necessity for modern life, and is therefore entirely for recreational use.
Doesn't matter, people have found other uses for guns besides killing things. The same way people have found other uses for cars besides going from place to place. Racing, pleasure, and appreciation to name a few. Not one is going to have issues if I use a shotgun to fire at a flew clay pigeons, just so as long as I do it responsibly and not where someone or something could get injured as a result (such as doing it in a city park).

Again, target the crime, not the means. Prosecute those that don't know how to apply responsibility and safety precautions. Prosecute those that seek to inflict harm on others or destroy property that isn't theirs. The only reason why gun regulations are being considered is because some people can't be bothered to consider and regard the crime itself rather than the means on how it was done. And they think the only thing a gun is good for is killing things. That's media and Hollywood clouding your perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
As I have said, nations who have stronger weapons restrictions also maintain polls that indicate the populace feels safer and happier. Strengthening restrictions on firearms, introducing universal healthcare, and inhibiting lobbying rights are all steps forward to a healthier society.
Sources please. Who administered these polls, who was the selection group in terms of demographics, and what countries in particular? Again, you're opening another door that could be basing responses on a wide variety of different factors unrelated to firearm presence.

And again, you assume gun regulation, universal healthcare, and inhibiting lobbying rights are all directly responsible for positive reactions in satisfaction surveys when in fact other factors may be involved as well. Consider local economy, utilities, culture, and a variety of other factors as well. You're simply assuming all will be made better with a few simple actions. And even so, just because it worked for one particular country doesn't mean it would work for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
One may simply be directed to the classifications used in the United States' politics to see how uneducated the public is, about nearly everything. From history and science, to moder foreign affairs and policy-making, the United States' populace is, by far, the most ignorant.
Making generalizations about the entire country is like racism. You could say the same stereotypical things about the French being cowards, British people having bad teeth, and blondes being dumb. It's hard to take your points seriously when you make such broad and negative generalized assumptions that Americans are stupid without valid, dependable, and unbiased sources, of which of course do not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
You are equating the eighteenth century to a globalized world. The foundation of this point is moot.
And yet history has shown time and time again that it repeats itself. And yet people still have a tough time learning from it. Really, how much do you think war changes in the overall scheme of things? Hate to say it, but there's hard proof that wars have existed in the past, and they're currently going on now. And yes, there will be more of them in the future, any of which could involve the United States becoming a potential target. And there's nothing that says China wouldn't try to seek out a partner or other group of countries to target America. There's plenty of countries out there that hate the United States and believe they would benefit from this country's downfall, be it economic, political, or religious reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
The Titanic was not a globalized conflict that would effectively destroy the world's economy, result in over a billion deaths, and create a third world war. Stop making non sequiturs.
Then please stop taking things out of context. The statement I made there was to make a point about not assuming you know how things will turn out and how humans in the past have been blinded by assumptions and hubris. Instead, you wrongly compared and contrasted two non-related events. Your error, not mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddiursa of the Sky View Post
And, in addition, we assume nearly every aspect of our daily lives based on the probabilities suggested by patterns and evidence. I assume that there will be a tomorrow because there has been for over 4 billion years, and that, as far as I know, there is no celestial body present to interfere with that assumption. It is entirely safe it assume based on the probabilities or possibilities. It is more probable that China will not start World War III because it would not work out in its favor. Ever.
Based on chance and pattern, yes, but here you are assuming you believe that such events won't ever happen beyond all reasonable doubt even though we're talking about something that could potentially happen years from now if particular events, triggers, and certain conditions are met in terms of politics and economy. All of which are elements you are overlooking.

As for there being no tomorrow, I'm sure you're familiar with what a gamma ray burst is? Or the kind of radiation a magnetar can unleash? Yes, the chances of such catastrophic events are unlikely in our lifetime, but complete refusal to acknowledge any chance of them happening is naive.

Point is time and history have proven war is inevitable and will always exist as long as there are differences within human society. And there are plenty of differences that separate the United States from China. There are those that simply assume they can rely on someone else for their personal safety (military, police, security, etc) and place their entire lives in their hands. And there are those that feel safer by not relying on anyone else and have taken their own preparations in case of a disastrous situation. How and if you want to prepare is up to you, but don't force what you think is the right method upon someone else who doesn't agree with it, especially if what they do is not harmful and they are being responsible and careful with regards to what they do.

Is it a matter of making guns illegal, or more about making sure people use them responsibility, are aware of their power, and are educated with regards to their use? Is it a matter of punishing all current and would-be gun owners, or more about preventing crimes before they occur by evaluating the character, morality, and psychological state of an individual before they can make a firearm purchase?
__________________

Reply With Quote