Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2012, 10:56 AM   #256
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Missing the point really. Maybe we need to talk about how guns make it easier to kill than other weapons. Its quicker, more painless and efficient. You are pressing a trigger from yards away...kinda makes it easier to desensitize yourself.

It's a combination of capacity and easy of doing significant harm.

Why not make holes in paper using an air rifle or something? Why does it have to be bullets? If your answer is because I can, feels good, murica, etc. then I can't talk to you.

I'll agree with the first things but the last makes no sense. Killing is killing and a bullets impact is not a pretty site most of the time.
firstdown is offline  

Advertisements
Old 12-19-2012, 10:56 AM   #257
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alvin Walton View Post
It doesnt have to a "bullet", but thats what I choose.
I'm doing somehting quite harmless. And quite legal.
Just because its legal doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be. Not a valid retort IMO. We are debating the validity of existing and possible future legislation.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:03 AM   #258
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:17 AM   #259
Pro Bowl
 
punch it in's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: toms river, nj
Age: 42
Posts: 5,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Piers Morgan really can be a POS. Not Bill Maher level, but a real dick. Its like Rush or Bill, from the other side.
Exactly how he came across. Rush or Bill from the other side. Lol.
__________________
"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate." Vince Lombardi
punch it in is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:21 AM   #260
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts
It's a valid argument that can be applied to anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!
Rogue states are the problem, not the weapons themselves. If you can't see that this may not be the discussion for you. When was the last time we had nuclear ordinance activate and kill without human intervention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.
WTF is high ammo? What's the difference between a high capacity magazine and multiple 5 round magazines? A few seconds is all. Go to any range and watch people drill on mag changes.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:25 AM   #261
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,442
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
We're never taking all guns off the street. That's not gonna happen. How could we even do it?
I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:26 AM   #262
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,442
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
I disagree, not surprisingly. Guns are not going to magically disappear, we have to find a way to identify a potential abuser and stop them. It always seems that there are plenty of people after the fact that will attest to 'creepy eyes' or extremely anti-social behavior yet the amount of intervention by society in general and mental health professionals in particular is lacking.

There will always be a way to create a sensationalized event, using poison, explosives, even interfering with a freeway or railroad track.

If only we had Skynet's behavioral prediction model to help...... j/K
We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:29 AM   #263
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
We've already tried that approach and, as a result, many people are dead.

We need a different approach.
I am not familiar with that exercise. When did that happen?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:32 AM   #264
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I never said ALL guns. But Australia has already had a successful campaign of taking many guns off of the streets and their homicide rate plummeted. It can be done.
And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people!
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:36 AM   #265
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
And they are a country of criminals! Imagine what we could do as a country of normal people!
Selected by the finest judges in the U.K. FACT!
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:38 AM   #266
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,499
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
Here's the issue with your analogy. Vehicles and Booze have primary uses. When not used, as intended, then they can have negative consequeneces. However, their value, especially that of a vehicle, is very important in our culture and society. Guns have a single purpose. They are for killing. The guns used in the CT murders were used as they were intended to be used, for killing. The car or alcohol in your analogy were used as they are not intended to be used. That is the disconnect.un control work in Australia?
Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
I say we take a note from Australia. In 1996 they had a massacre, and they reacted by banning all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. After the ban Australia saw a 59% drop in firearm homicide and a 65% drop in firearm suicide. More importantly, they saw no increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. That is real world evidence that banning assault weapons lower the murder and suicide rates in the area affected.
Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
No one is saying that a gun ban will eliminate gun violence. It will put a hamper on crimes that are not premeditated and make it more difficult to get the type of guns that can cause massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time, especially without red flags being raised. The gun ban is certainly no silver bullet type of situation, but it is one of many steps that can greatly reduce the amount of violence we face in this country in addition to more money spent on preventitive mental health care.
Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL!
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 12:28 PM   #267
Playmaker
 
Alvin Walton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 4,238
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Nancy Pelosi wants your assault magazines. (whatever that is)


__________________
REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968
Alvin Walton is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 01:16 PM   #268
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
Actually the study which claimed that homicide rates in Australia dropped prior to the Aussie gun ban has been debunked as a false put-on created by the gun lobby.
This source says homcide rates were droping.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)
firstdown is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:39 PM   #269
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,214
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
Guns do not have a sole purpose or intent. They are not live, breathing life forms. They are inadament objects. The intent lies with the person who is using one. The same as someone who's wielding a knife, using a baseball bat for purposes other than playing baseball, or using their hands and feet in certain deadly styles of martial arts. Knowing these facts, it remains like I stated earlier, dealing with the root of the problem, behavioral health, would lead to much less gun crime than greatly reducing or banning fire arms.




Or we could take a note from Switzerland, who does not have a standing army, but rather a militia. Most every male carries a weapon, and gun crime rates are so low in Switzerland that they don't even have to kept statistics.



Here's where you guys are so one dimensional in your thinking. You are assuming that banning guns will greatly reduce gun crimes. It's the same failed logic to the war on drugs and illegal alcohol. The only thing that gun laws do now is keep an honest man honest. A ban on fire arms would disarm law abiding citizens, and suddenly there is a HUGE under world black market for guns just like drugs. Your street gangs and mafias, your homicidal people will still be armed, still be committing murders, and your law abiding citizens will feel unprotected.

What I'm trying to get you guys to look at is treating and correcting the root of the problem FIRST! That is the MOST effective way of reducing violent crimes. The root of that problem is the behavior, the tendency toward committing these crimes. Haven't you learned anything in history? Man needed food, so he made weapons to kill his dinner and tools to cook. Man needed to travel, so he made roads and vehicles. My point is, if man does not have a tool he needs, he'll create it or use alternatives to getting the tools he needs in life. He won't just throw his hands up and say, "ah well, guess I won't ever be able to kill anybody anymore now since guns are banned." You honest, really think that is going to happen? LOL!
Skinsguy, you're right. Guns have other purposes. It was wrong for me to insinuate there was a single purpose. Let me rephrase, they are designed to kill. When guns are invisioned, most of them are designed to kill people or animals. I'm sure there are some designed for target practice, etc. That said, I don't believe those are the weapons we're having issues with in this country. However, the point of my original post stands, people are grasping at straw man arguments to defend it. You're grasping at banning cars, knives, and baseball bats. No one is saying violence stems from a single form, but firearms are the easiest and most efficient. Secondly, all of the above are not being used as intended, where assault rifles are being used as intended.

Switzerland is certainly the exception to the rule. However, let's be clear. Each person that owns a gun there also has military training to go along with the gun. They have very few automatic weapons, only active militia personnel are given access to automatic weapons. They strictly regulate all ammunition. If you need ammunition you are forced to get it from the military armory in the event of an emergency, except the ammunition sold at the shooting range which has strict regulations on using that ammunition at the range. Finally, to carry a gun in public you must get a permit which you have to justify your need to carry a firearm and pass an exam. So, all of your folks talking about how utopic Switzerland is... I agree. Let's enact their system. I'm fine with it. I'm guessing most of the pro-gun crowd isn't though. So how about we stop using Switzerland as an example.

What about a bit of a compromise, what about the laws Japan has in place? To buy a shotgun or an air rifle (handguns/assault rifles banned) you have to:
  • Take a class and exam.
  • Skill test at shooting range.
  • Pass a drug test.
  • Comprehensive mental evaluation.
  • File your firearm with the police, who run a background check.

This ensures only qualified individuals own a firearm. Japan had 11 gun-related homicides last year. It brings mental health into the picture as an equation. It causes someone who wants a gun to clear multiple hurdles to get a firearm. That's enough to deter those who don't deserve a gun.

When it really comes down to it, if children getting slaughtered by a crazy man with an assault rifle won't convince you to change your stance, nothing I can type on a football forum would change that stance.

LINKZ:
Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Getting a gun in Japan – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:54 PM   #270
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,442
Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf

Or try this source from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...pring_2011.pdf

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.37063 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25