NATION

PASSWORD

Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:43 am

Personal Defense Force wrote:
Leningrad Union wrote:Why the fuck should a civilian own a gun in the first place?


To protect personal freedom maybe?

That's the opposite of what weapons ownership does.

Hunting maybe? Wonderful stress reliever to prevent people from going insane maybe (Target shooting, herp derp)?

Hunting is barbaric and authoritarian. For target shooting, low-powered rifles under strict locks and restricted access, at central locations, would suffice for that.

Simply the fact that here in America guns in the hands of civilians reduces crime as a whole in our country?

Except it doesn't.

Look at Chicago. Murder rate there is awful--can you imagine how much worse it would be if gun access was not as restricted as it is?

What freedom-hating authoritarians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the individual human being that matters, not stuff.

Incidentally, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?
Last edited by Franklin Delano Bluth on Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs

User avatar
Blasveck
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13877
Founded: Dec 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Blasveck » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:45 am

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:
To protect personal freedom maybe?

That's the opposite of what weapons ownership does.

Hunting maybe? Wonderful stress reliever to prevent people from going insane maybe (Target shooting, herp derp)?

Hunting is barbaric and authoritarian. For target shooting, low-powered rifles under strict locks and restricted access, at central locations, would suffice for that.

Simply the fact that here in America guns in the hands of civilians reduces crime as a whole in our country?

Except it doesn't.

Look at Chicago. Murder rate there is awful--can you imagine how much worse it would be if gun access was not as restricted as it is?

What freedom-hating authoritarians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the individual human being that matters, not stuff.

Incidentally, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?


And yet taking guns away from responsible citizens will accomplish.......nothing.

Considering the fact that if people want to obtain a gun illegally, they will do so.
Forever a Communist

User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:46 am

Blasveck wrote:
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:That's the opposite of what weapons ownership does.


Hunting is barbaric and authoritarian. For target shooting, low-powered rifles under strict locks and restricted access, at central locations, would suffice for that.


Except it doesn't.

Look at Chicago. Murder rate there is awful--can you imagine how much worse it would be if gun access was not as restricted as it is?

What freedom-hating authoritarians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the individual human being that matters, not stuff.

Incidentally, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?


And yet taking guns away from responsible citizens will accomplish.......nothing.

Considering the fact that if people want to obtain a gun illegally, they will do so.


Apparently conversational context isn't a thing you're familiar with, nor do you retain information.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:46 am

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:
To protect personal freedom maybe?

That's the opposite of what weapons ownership does.

What freedom-hating authoritarians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the individual human being that matters, not stuff.

Incidentally, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?


Ok, that's about the 10th time you've dismissed gun ownership as "freedom-hating" and "authoritarian". I think people might be getting a little bored of it now.
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17570
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:46 am

Personal Defense Force wrote:Actually living in california over here, and I'm assuming you do as well by your post. The problem we have here is all the bloody lefties in the big cities are preventing a majority of the state which are righties from exerting any power in the state government because lower population centers have almost no say whatsoever in the government here.


California is a lost cause, it is high time to leave the state like I did. It is being flooded with illegal immigrants and their children and it is only going to become more leftist going forward. If you are dissatisfied with the state's politics, high cost of living, and the fact that businesses are leaving, the question isn't whether you should leave- but when.

User avatar
Blasveck
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13877
Founded: Dec 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Blasveck » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:47 am

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
And yet taking guns away from responsible citizens will accomplish.......nothing.

Considering the fact that if people want to obtain a gun illegally, they will do so.


Apparently conversational context isn't a thing you're familiar with, nor do you retain information.


You've said before that you wish to remove guns entirely, correct?
Forever a Communist

User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:47 am

New Aerios wrote:
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:That's the opposite of what weapons ownership does.

What freedom-hating authoritarians like yourself fail to understand is that it is the individual human being that matters, not stuff.

Incidentally, why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?


Ok, that's about the 10th time you've dismissed gun ownership as "freedom-hating" and "authoritarian". I think people might be getting a little bored of it now.


If people are bored of the truth, that's hardly my problem.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs

User avatar
Leningrad Union
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6184
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Leningrad Union » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:49 am

New Aerios wrote:
Leningrad Union wrote:Why the fuck should a civilian own a gun in the first place?


Really? I thought we'd got past this stage in the argument by now. :palm:

- Self defence
- Defence of other civilians
- Defence of the country
- Hunting
- Sport e.g. target shooting
- Because the US constitution says so

This is Canada, not America. "The right to bear arms" means you have the right to form a militia to defend your country.

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:49 am

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
New Aerios wrote:
Ok, that's about the 10th time you've dismissed gun ownership as "freedom-hating" and "authoritarian". I think people might be getting a little bored of it now.


If people are bored of the truth, that's hardly my problem.


Thing is, what exactly makes your opinion "the truth"? Can I get some evidence that gun ownership reduces freedom? Or are you just spouting complete and utter bullshit?
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:50 am

Leningrad Union wrote:
New Aerios wrote:
Really? I thought we'd got past this stage in the argument by now. :palm:

- Self defence
- Defence of other civilians
- Defence of the country
- Hunting
- Sport e.g. target shooting
- Because the US constitution says so

This is Canada, not America. "The right to bear arms" means you have the right to form a militia to defend your country.


What does Canada have to do with this? We're talking about California...
Last edited by New Aerios on Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Leningrad Union
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6184
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Leningrad Union » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:50 am

New Aerios wrote:
Leningrad Union wrote:This is Canada, not America. "The right to bear arms" means you have the right to form a militia to defend your country.


What does Canada have to do with this? We're talking about California...

I read it wrong. :rofl: I always think of Canada when I see CA.
Last edited by Leningrad Union on Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kernen
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6387
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:51 am

Leningrad Union wrote:
New Aerios wrote:
Really? I thought we'd got past this stage in the argument by now. :palm:

- Self defence
- Defence of other civilians
- Defence of the country
- Hunting
- Sport e.g. target shooting
- Because the US constitution says so

This is Canada, not America. "The right to bear arms" means you have the right to form a militia to defend your country.


Isn't the modern precedent for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that it applies to individuals and not militias?

EDIT: aha, saw your mistake
Last edited by Kernen on Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Get abortions, do drugs, own guns, but never misstate legal procedure.

User avatar
Personal Defense Force
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:53 am

Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.


You have obviously never shot a gun before, so you have no idea what the satisfaction of shooting a high power rifle at a clay or paper target 1000 meters away feels like, the grand satisfaction of knowing that your skill is something that few people can achieve is equivalent to being good at any other sport (And yes, it's a sport, the olympics do agree with me there).

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them, and only a baboon would believe that a law abiding citizen would do such a thing.
Live fight and die for what you believe
Just a few nation Calculators:

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
http://www.isidewith.com/results/294873095

User avatar
Leningrad Union
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6184
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Leningrad Union » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:54 am

Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.


You have obviously never shot a gun before, so you have no idea what the satisfaction of shooting a high power rifle at a clay or paper target 1000 meters away feels like, the grand satisfaction of knowing that your skill is something that few people can achieve is equivalent to being good at any other sport (And yes, it's a sport, the olympics do agree with me there).

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them, and only a baboon would believe that a law abiding citizen would do such a thing.

Just don't call hunting a sport....ever.

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:56 am

Leningrad Union wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.


You have obviously never shot a gun before, so you have no idea what the satisfaction of shooting a high power rifle at a clay or paper target 1000 meters away feels like, the grand satisfaction of knowing that your skill is something that few people can achieve is equivalent to being good at any other sport (And yes, it's a sport, the olympics do agree with me there).

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them, and only a baboon would believe that a law abiding citizen would do such a thing.

Just don't call hunting a sport....ever.


Why? It is a sport.
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Personal Defense Force
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:56 am

Leningrad Union wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.


You have obviously never shot a gun before, so you have no idea what the satisfaction of shooting a high power rifle at a clay or paper target 1000 meters away feels like, the grand satisfaction of knowing that your skill is something that few people can achieve is equivalent to being good at any other sport (And yes, it's a sport, the olympics do agree with me there).

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them, and only a baboon would believe that a law abiding citizen would do such a thing.

Just don't call hunting a sport....ever.


Technically it is, as not just anyone can go out an hunt now can they? It requires a great deal of skill that alot of people don't realize you have to have.
Live fight and die for what you believe
Just a few nation Calculators:

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
http://www.isidewith.com/results/294873095

User avatar
Kernen
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6387
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:56 am

Leningrad Union wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.


You have obviously never shot a gun before, so you have no idea what the satisfaction of shooting a high power rifle at a clay or paper target 1000 meters away feels like, the grand satisfaction of knowing that your skill is something that few people can achieve is equivalent to being good at any other sport (And yes, it's a sport, the olympics do agree with me there).

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them, and only a baboon would believe that a law abiding citizen would do such a thing.

Just don't call hunting a sport....ever.


But it is a sport. Perhaps not a competitive sport, but the term "sport" and hunting have been closely tied for hundreds of years.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Get abortions, do drugs, own guns, but never misstate legal procedure.

User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:58 am

Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

It's completely nonsensical, and shows piss-poor reasoning.

You have obviously never shot a gun before,

So not having the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is a badge of pride for you?

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

It's barbaric and anti-freedom because it reinforces cultural concepts of dominance and exploitation, not because of how it works physically.

It was only after several years of hunting myself that I came to realize this, so I have a lot to repent for.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution

Is an authoritarian, capitalist document.

and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

Rights do not necessarily equal freedom. A feudal lord's "right" to extract labor from his serfs, for instance.

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them,

The mere act of possession, regardless of any other explicit intent, can in certain circumstances constitute oppressive intimidation.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs

User avatar
Leningrad Union
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6184
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Leningrad Union » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:58 am

It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.

User avatar
Kernen
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6387
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:59 am

Leningrad Union wrote:It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.


Just because some people aren't always sporting about it doesn't mean the entire practice of hunting, which includes the taking of all kinds of terrestrial game with all kinds of weapons, not just precision rifles, is not a sport.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Get abortions, do drugs, own guns, but never misstate legal procedure.

User avatar
New Aerios
Minister
 
Posts: 2250
Founded: Apr 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Aerios » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:04 am

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Personal Defense Force wrote:Your cute, here I even quoted the entire post just for you. Oh, and look, theres even a part in there about Chicago.

It's completely nonsensical, and shows piss-poor reasoning.

You have obviously never shot a gun before,

So not having the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is a badge of pride for you?

And hunting is far less barbaric then some of the practices that the meat industries use to "Humanely" kill alot of the animal under there care, atleast hunters kill cleanly and efficiently. If they didn't then the meat would be tainted with adrenaline and stiff, which ruins the taste and puts the animal through undue amounts of pain.

It's barbaric and anti-freedom because it reinforces cultural concepts of dominance and exploitation, not because of how it works physically.

It was only after several years of hunting myself that I came to realize this, so I have a lot to repent for.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution

Is an authoritarian, capitalist document.

and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

Rights do not necessarily equal freedom. A feudal lord's "right" to extract labor from his serfs, for instance.

We'll just ignore the fact that people that legally obtain and carry a firearm don't intimidate people with them,

The mere act of possession, regardless of any other explicit intent, can in certain circumstances constitute oppressive intimidation.


Hurr durr durr not fuking cloo wut ur talk1ng about is BADJ OF PRIYDEEEEE!!!!!!LOLOLOLOL!!! AUTHORITARIONZ EBIL CAPITALIST BARBARIC EBIL ANTI-FREEDUMZ OPRESIV INTIMAMADASHUN!!!!!

TAKIN FREEDUMZ AWAY IS FREDOM
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

That's pretty much all you've been saying this whole bloody thread. Not only is it incredibly annoying, but it is also completely meaningless, nonsensical, and idiotic.
-------------------------------I--M--P--E--R--I--V--M----N--O--V--A----A--E--R--I--O--S---------------------------------
"No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong"

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Wikipedia and Universe
Senator
 
Posts: 3897
Founded: Jul 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikipedia and Universe » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:05 am

Chernoslavia wrote:
Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:No, though I could see how you might think it would if you settled for superficial thinking rather than critical analysis of how things interact in reality. Weapons possession is an infringement upon individual liberty, because it provides a means by which others can be intimidated and coerced into behaving how the weapons possessor wants them to behave.
This is wrong in every single way. Please do tell me then why Castro disarmed the Cuban people in 1959? Because surely it wasn't to protect other people's freedom which he zoom restriced afterwards.
He seems to think the physical capability to infringe upon liberty = actually infringing upon liberty. If that idea raises your eyebrow, don't be surprised. Bluth has a lot of radical, backward views which make little sense to me. Perhaps that's simply because I'm superficial and primitive-minded ( :roll: ). Still, Bluth's own unique brand of moonbattery tends to perplex even his peers on the political fringe on this site.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get pissed, they'll be a mile away- and barefoot.
Proud Member and Co-Founder of the MDISC Alliance
An ODECON Naval Analyst wrote:Superior tactics and training can in fact triumph over force of numbers and missile spam.
Bottle wrote:This is not rocket surgery, folks.
Senestrum wrote:This is relativity, the theory that takes everything we know about the world, bends it over, and fucks it to death with a spiked dildo.

User avatar
Leningrad Union
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6184
Founded: Jul 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Leningrad Union » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:10 am

Kernen wrote:
Leningrad Union wrote:It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.


Just because some people aren't always sporting about it doesn't mean the entire practice of hunting, which includes the taking of all kinds of terrestrial game with all kinds of weapons, not just precision rifles, is not a sport.

Fair enough.

User avatar
Personal Defense Force
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Personal Defense Force » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:10 am

Leningrad Union wrote:It's not a sport when a deer hundreds of feet away is shot by a precision rifle. This is even more ridiculous than calling cheerleading a sport.


Deer can detect a person up to a mile away inbetween sight and smell, far out of range of most modern rifles.

t's completely nonsensical, and shows piss-poor reasoning.


Ah baka, how am I surprised a Liberty hating Libertarian such as yourself is entirely hypocritical of facts and statistics.

So not having the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is a badge of pride for you?


I hate to say it like this, but you sound like an idiot stating this constantly, being that you haven't proved your point a single time and I have dozens in the form of well backed documents, statistics, and facts.

So I ask you this, are you just spouting the first thing that comes out of the little pea sized vesicle you call a brain or is there any deliberate thought behind it? What you are doing is borderline flaming under the ideal that you have no factual information whatsoever backing your statements and you are reduced to yelling out insults like a five year old that was just told the moon isn't made of cheese.

It's barbaric and anti-freedom because it reinforces cultural concepts of dominance and exploitation, not because of how it works physically.

It was only after several years of hunting myself that I came to realize this, so I have a lot to repent for.


I assume again, oncemore, that something fanatical happened to you and now has a spot in the back of your skull as a reserved memory to lash out upon society because you, one person amongst billions, has the odd ideology that you are right and all is evil because of something that happened to you and you alone?

Is an authoritarian, capitalist document.


Cute, the document that gives you the right to say that is the one thats taking away your freedoms.

Oh and before you say "Herp derp bill of rights" the bill of rights is an amendment to the constitution that adds rights to it.

Code: Select all
Rights do not necessarily equal freedom. A feudal lord's "right" to extract labor from his serfs, for instance.


Yes, but we are no longer in that age where "Rights" constitute taking others rights away, again we do have that whole thing in our constitution where we are forbidden to impede on ones mans rights over another without due process. Rights, in the modern age, constitute the freedoms our government are forced to give us as it is part of the doctrine of "Basic Human Rights".

Your example is a bit flawed in that regard.

The mere act of possession, regardless of any other explicit intent, can in certain circumstances constitute oppressive intimidation.


Yes, because I intimidate people daily with the firearm I carry unintentionally, even though people treat me just like any other human being. If anything, the only people I intimidate are those that wish to do harm on others, and in that case its not considered "a bad thing"
Live fight and die for what you believe
Just a few nation Calculators:

Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56
http://www.isidewith.com/results/294873095

User avatar
Sommorragh
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1073
Founded: Aug 21, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sommorragh » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:14 am

So not having the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is a badge of pride for you?


You have failed to provide any empirical evidence to support your argument. PDF has not failed to do so. You have also failed to rebuttal any of his points in a cohesive manner. U til the day when you can provide evidence.... No wait, that will never happen.

It's barbaric and anti-freedom because it reinforces cultural concepts of dominance and exploitation, not because of how it works physically.

It was only after several years of hunting myself that I came to realize this, so I have a lot to repent for.


That's called the human condition, and no matter how far in you push your fingers into your ears to block out the sound of reality, it ain't goin away.

Oh, and I hate freedom because I believe in the Constitution

Is an authoritarian, capitalist document.


Completely subjective. Also, so fucking what if it's capitalist?

and that the individual person should have the basic rights granted to them and garenteed by there country?

Rights do not necessarily equal freedom. A feudal lord's "right" to extract labor from his serfs, for instance.[/quote]

Except, we ain't taking about a feudal lord's rights. We're talking the right of law abiding citizens. In this case, rights do equate freedom.


The mere act of possession, regardless of any other explicit intent, can in certain circumstances constitute oppressive intimidation.


Bluth, I think your problem is that you simply are so detached from the world that you have no cohesive vision of reality and are trying to deny the human condition in a futile attempt to justify your own views. Stop, go outside and aquent yourself with the world.
Last edited by Sommorragh on Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asoliea, Cannot think of a name, Celritannia, CoraSpia, Dresderstan, Dummie, Fluvannia, Greater Miami Shores, Necroghastia, New haven america, Nobel Hobos 2, Pax Nerdvana, Rusozak, Saiwania, Shrillland, Sodoran Alesia, The Black Forrest, The Greater Ohio Valley, The Rich Port, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army

Advertisement

Remove ads