BF2S Forums Gun nuts... Yet another Obama lie.

imortal wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Doesn't that make cars more dangerous?  The very fact that there are at least as many automobiles out there as guns, and that they are so easily operable in a maner they were not designed for, and able to take so many lives seems to me like they are even worse than guns are.  They are also obtainable without anything more than a credit check.  Everyone assumes a car is 'safe,' takes them for granted, and people die.

so, you would have to stop the selling of cars, knives, airplanes, baseball hats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, petrol etc.

Actually, I believe that would be your point.  My point is, if you want a ban because they are 'dangerous,' then you are starting in the wrong spot or you have blinders on.  By the 'dangerous' argument, you would have to ban automobiles, or at least severly restirct them.  The fact that you don't suggest this gives lie to your argument from the start.  You just want to ban guns, and are looking for an excuse to justify your position.  All I did was poke a hole in your reasoning. 

Remember, I am the one who wants to keep all of this stuff legal;  I am not the one suggesting banning anything here.  Oh, and how many times to I have to say that it is not a matter of 'need.'  If you ask "what do you need it for?" then you don't understand the concept of freedoms.

I think he's saying that guns have the sole use of killing or incapacitating (I don't really count plinking as a legitimate use of a gun), whereas golf clubs, knives, baseball bats, cars etc, are designed to be used in a very specific, non-violent way (even a machete isn't meant for hacking off limbs).  A gun, on the other hand, doesn't take you anywhere, doesn't cut your food, usually doesn't help you play sport, etc.  And note that very few people will automatically link a golf club with killing someone by bludgeoning.


(By the way, I'm not debating on whether guns should or should not be banned, so let's not start some massive flamefest rebuttal by someone who just got ticked off at whatever I said, right?)

On another note, though, why won't a tazer be better than a gun in the case of self defence?  If a person comes to your house with a gun, he's not going to be able to shoot you through the wall, and should he come in, you can just taze him when he does come in.  If he's shooting through the window, well, would you pop up your head to take a shot back?  This is assuming that you have an automatic weapon for self defence, which you're unlikely to carry on person.

*reiterate that I'm not buying into debate, just interested

Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-02-27 22:42:54)

some_random_panda wrote:

On another note, though, why won't a tazer be better than a gun in the case of self defence?  If a person comes to your house with a gun, he's not going to be able to shoot you through the wall, and should he come in, you can just taze him when he does come in.  If he's shooting through the window, well, would you pop up your head to take a shot back?  This is assuming that you have an automatic weapon for self defence, which you're unlikely to carry on person.

Tasers are not a "Magic Bullet."  They are not the stun guns from Star Trek.  They have some pretty serious limitations.  For one, they have a definate limited range.  15 feet for most, with some that extend to 25 feet.  Second, they have a very limited ammunition capacity.  They are single shot.  They have a single cartridge that you have to completely replace before you can fire again.  Also, you do not have to hit with a single electrode, but with 2.  When you fire a taser, 2 darts shoot out; one firing a bit high, the other shooting low; you have to hit with both to have the taser work.  Oh, and a taser is only good for a limited amount of shock time before the battery runs out.

Tasers are good for police, who are getting backup, or have a partner on hand.  But you will notice that nowhere in the US has anyone suggested that tasers completely replace firearms.

some_random_panda wrote:

I think he's saying that guns have the sole use of killing or incapacitating (I don't really count plinking as a legitimate use of a gun), whereas golf clubs, knives, baseball bats, cars etc, are designed to be used in a very specific, non-violent way (even a machete isn't meant for hacking off limbs).  A gun, on the other hand, doesn't take you anywhere, doesn't cut your food, usually doesn't help you play sport, etc.  And note that very few people will automatically link a golf club with killing someone by bludgeoning.

And my point was slightly different. When a person is shot and killed by a gun, that device (the gun) was operating in the proper way it was designed to do.  A car that kills someone is being operated in a manner other than it was designed.  That makes the automobile flawed if it is able to be so easily worked outside its normal parameters to cause a death.  I am not trying to get either banned; my point was a bit subtle.  Oh, and a gun does not do anything unless the operator causes it to do it.  A gun has no motivation of its own.  It has no soul, no drive.  It is a tool.  Yes, it is a specialized tool for an occupation you may find distasteful, but it is only a tool.  Lay the blame of violence at the feet of the person wielding the tool.

And yes, there is good violence as well.

Last edited by imortal (2009-02-28 00:26:46)

If its a 'well regulated militia' then it would seem logical to have any assault weapons registered to the owners.
I'm pretty sure anyone in the military who is issued a weapon has some record kept of that and its ultimately traceable to them.

Burwhale wrote:

imortal wrote:

It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australiataxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that whilethe law-abiding citizens turned them in, thecriminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

Turns out this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts ( shock horror).
A quick check of snopes totally debunks it. I wont even check the rest of the facts in the "Chain Email " as they are probably false as well.

Heres a more appropriate bunch of statistics: ( all for the year 2000)
Australian Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop=0.31
US Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop=2.97

Aust % homicides with firearms  =16.3435%
US % homicides with firearms  =39%

Aust Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop=1.57
US Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop= 7.52

Source= United nations office on drugs and crime

I was goign to say somthing but didn't feel like posting.

For the 'homicide rate'. Depending on when you take the statistics from (financial year or calendar year) the rate actual fell by nearly 8%. And if you do take the 'rise' then the following year it fell by more then 10% and the year after by another 5%.

Assaults were already on an upwards trend, and with assaults varying from anything up to 20% month to month an 8% change over a year isn't much to speak of. Yes they went up for 4 years but then they fell for 8 and we currently have less assaults then we did before the restrictions.

Armed robbery. 44%... well the statistics show anything up to 60% changes month to month and again it was just 'bad timing' because we currently have fewer armed robberies then ever before.

Maybe the gun laws didn't have a major effect but they sure as hell didn't make anything worse.

Was this chain letter produce by the NRA?
Because

In 2000, the American National Rifle Association claimed that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws based on some highly selective statistics from newspaper articles. Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.

It's just not true.

some_random_panda wrote:

I don't really count plinking as a legitimate use of a gun

why not? long range shooting is very challenging

some_random_panda wrote:

On another note, though, why won't a tazer be better than a gun in the case of self defence?  If a person comes to your house with a gun, he's not going to be able to shoot you through the wall

   even a .22 can penetrate walls

and tazers are great as imortal said, if you have backup right there and have the best shot possible with it.

some_random_panda wrote:

I think he's saying that guns have the sole use of killing or incapacitating
whereas golf clubs, knives, baseball bats, cars etc, are designed to be used in a very specific, non-violent way (even a machete isn't meant for hacking off limbs).  A gun, on the other hand, doesn't take you anywhere, doesn't cut your food, usually doesn't help you play sport, etc.

firearms have the sole purpose of propelling a projectile down a metal tube with a degree of accuracy, knives exist solely to penetrate, slash, and cut various things. golf clubs and bats are designed specifically to smack things with.

and a number of my guns routinely supply me with food

some_random_panda wrote:

And note that very few people will automatically link a golf club with killing someone by bludgeoning.

seems like more of a perception issue to me

Last edited by krazed (2009-02-28 11:21:07)

Reciprocity wrote:

i learn how to defend myself, and i keep the means to enact violence when necessary.

this

Reciprocity wrote:

guns do have the singular function of killing and incapacitating.  but you make the assumption that violence is always a negative.  violence to protect my family and myself is not a negative.  guns just happen to be the most efficient means of committing positive violent acts.  i could let the police be violent for me.  i could lay down and accept whatever horrors await.  i could beg for mercy.  or i could pray to some god. 

but i don't do any of that.  i don't rely on some fat fucking cop.  i don't lay down.  i don't appeal for some animal's better nature.  i learn how to defend myself, and i keep the means to enact violence when necessary.

Feels good to live in the wonderful wide world of self actualization and responsibility, doesn't it?

Burwhale wrote:

As for Ramius

Ramius wrote:

considering some people owned artillery, an AR-15 might be a mechanical amazement to the founders, but in terms of firepower, not really THAT much more impressive than a howitzer.

No one uses artillery for home defense so that is a ridiculous comparison. The power that todays guns gives one person , not an artilery team, would scare them.

I didn't realize we were discussing home defense EXCLUSIVELY...
The founding fathers may or may not have been impressed by such firepower.  Let's leave that one, since it is so difficult to analyze opinions people never had.

Burwhale wrote:

Ramius wrote:

"Well regulated" as in a well regulated clock--one that functions well.

I think a more appropriate definition is the first one I found in the dictionary.
"to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses." Therefore who will direct, control, rule, the "well regulated militia" that you speak of. Obviously it would be the govt.

I don't agree.

10 USC 311 wrote:

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If the militia is supposed to be regulated in the "controled" sense, having an unorganized militia would not make sense.
(Granted, this law was passed well after the founding fathers died, so they had no input.)

Burwhale wrote:

Ramius wrote:

Now, you go spewing rediculous stereotypes...this tells me you don't understand the debate very well.
Yes, if I want to own an Ar-15 I'm probably some militia nutjob running around the forrest, waiting for the  black helicopters to come.  There are several million AR-15s in the US.  I'm sure the majority are owned by such people!  In fact, I probably am one of them! (Being in the military and a college student who likes to debate constitutional law--yep, definitely crazed anarchist! /sarcasm).

I dont understand the debate? Fine, then educate me. What do you do in your militia? who are you planning to defend yourself from? If you are a "well regulated militia", then who is regulating you? Why cant the Army/Army reserve/police/swat etc take care of the large force that you need to fight, or is it the forementioned groups you are arming yourself against? Does your militia have any authority over other people if the shit hits the fan? If not, then why should we pay any attention to them at all?

As I said, I dont care if people own guns, but they must be regulated. If the founding fathers were around now, they would probably agree.

I am in the military, so I don't really fall under that category.  The militia exists laregly as a contingency force.  What it responds to is very dependent on the situation.  Government tyranny, foreign invasion, local defense (although riots or terrorist acts are more likely than indian raids, in today's society), all of those are legitimate uses of the militia.  In times of national crisis, it is likely the military would incorporate large portions of the unorganized militia (via drafts or other systems).  Various state militias may have governmental authority, as well as the organized militia of Title 10.  The unorganized militia, in many ways, IS the people (granted, the progression of women's rights has not been reflected by updating this particular legislation).

Burwhale wrote:

As I said, I dont care if people own guns, but they must be regulated.

This isn't mere regulation, the AWB is a de facto BAN.  Regulation would be more like "no mailorder sales" or "must be 18 to purchase a rifle."

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

imo, owning an assault rifle is as ridiculous [...]

if you want to look like a real man, if your penis is too short, if you have no self-esteem, do what europeans do, buy a porsche...

If you own a firearm as a penis extension, you're doing it wrong.

Women aren't impressed by a hard black rifle, with a 20 inch barrel, firing 600 rounds per minute
They are impressed by 6", skillfully doing 30 minutes per round.

You want an example of a culture where "Rifle = Penis Extension", go visit Mogadishu.

You know what would be really ironic?  If Obama had investments in gun manufacturers, he could inspire these rises in gun sales by scaring gun owners with this talk of bans.

I know he's probably serious about the bans, but this would be a really profitable angle to work in the short run.  That would be hilarious if this turned out to be true, and no bans actually passed.

you getting your sources from action pawn #6?

Burwhale wrote:

Also what the hell is a "well regulated militia" anyway? Who is regulating it. The government?  Arent they the ones we are fighting in the first place? If not regulated by  the government, the "regulated militia" is just a group of nut jobs that like to dress up in camo gear and pretend they have authority because they carry a gun. No thanks, I will take my chances with the government.
For what its worth, I dont care if civilians own guns, but there should be regulation.

The definition of "regulated" has changed since when the constitution was written.  When the constitution was written, "Well regulated" meant "Well maintained".  The idea the "regulated" did not mean "restricted" until much later.  Really, a "well regulated militia" means A lot of people should be well-armed.