Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1254 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 15 - 08:20pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Off Topic /
 

  TheSecond 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Dr. Peaceful Dec 17, 2012, 05:35pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Aug 27, 2013, 02:34pm EDT

Replies: 20 - Views: 3725
The second amendment in the U.S. constitution says:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


Reference: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_zoom_1.html
(Note, the 2nd amendment was originally the 4th proposed article. Only because the first two articles were rejected, then it became the 2nd. So look at the forth article in the bill of rights picture.)

It's simple English, word by word. In the beginning of the sentence it sets the two prerequisites required for the statement in the second half of the sentence. The two prerequisites are: one, a well regulated militia; two, necessary for the security of a free state. Only when these requirements are met, then the people's right to bear arms should not be infringed.

At the time when the bill of rights were written (1789):
- There were no well organized / regulated and multiple branches of military forces that we have today.
- There were no well organized / regulated law enforcement departments and agencies that we have today.
- The country's just formed, there were still a lot of uncertainties, still a lot of concerns of a central power, and still some lawlessness. So the right to bear arms was written to ensure the security of the state, to facilitate the formation of militia, and for self defense.
- Of course, there were no super markets back then for convenient purchase of meats and processed food items. So hunting was necessary to acquire food in some areas.
- Firearms back then were much inferior compare to today's. Muskets with bayonet were the personal weapon of choice in the independence war. One could only fire a few shots in a minute with a musket and it's quite inaccurate. That's why they need soldiers in formations and to fire volleys.

Today, we have well regulated police and emergency services easily accessible by dialing 911. Today, we have well regulated military branches to protect the country. Today, we have abundant food supply, that hunting is only a sport. So, the need to have personal firearms today is far less a necessity than before. Nowadays, a lot of people own guns merely for sports and for satisfying his/her own fascination for guns.

Today, we have firearms that provide much higher rate of fire, much better accuracy, and far more deadly than before. Having an assault rifle that can mow down a crowd of people in seconds, at one's home in peace time, is more of a security threat (to self, family and others) than a necessity of security. In fact, it's excessive! Even if the gun owner is well trained for handling of firearms and a very responsible individual, he/she would never able to guarantee if the weapon would not fall into the wrong hands, or would not be used at the wrong time, at the wrong place.

Today, we have youths that are far more desensitized about violence than before, because of influence from TV media, movies, games, and the internet. After all, they didn't have video games and youtube back in 1789, did they?! Back then probably youths had much healthier activities and better respect for firearms. Today, there are a lot more societal pressure for youths as well. Kids grew up mentally way to early than used to be. Hence, the younger generation is a lot more susceptible to mental illness. That accompany with easy accessibility to guns, had been proved too many times a huge threat to our society.

Do we need to see any more tragedies and senseless loss of innocent lives to realize that the second amendment no longer applies things had changed in present times?! Do we need to see the next Guinness world record for school shooting here, before we realize that easy access to guns is a threat to our security, and an individual is not a regulated militia?! If the original writers of the amendment are still alive today, they would have scratched it in no time!

Should we give up some of our "rights" desires to own deadly weapons, so that we would take our kids to school only to worry about their grades in studies, instead of worrying that they would get shot and killed! F**k yeah!!

For those who worry (and paranoid) about the unlikely event that our country is invaded by foreign forces or attacked from within by rogue domestic forces, and that law enforcement and military are incapacitated, in that situation anyone loving this country would find a gun to fight the enemy as much as we can, even if we don't own one now, and even if we don't stand a chance using guns (what's called small arms) against airplanes, missiles, etc. Only in that situation, it is justified to bear as much arms as possible, including stealing them from the enemy. But we shouldn't be worrying about that now at peace time, the priority is to protect our children from guns in their everyday life.

The old saying, don't bring gun to an argument. Guns don't solve problems, it's an instrument to kill. It should be used in a last resort. Only here in U.S. would bring an assault rifle before an argument even started. And only here in U.S., a parent would put a 3 year old kid behind the firing handles of a 6 barrels mini-gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNbBYwD472w

Shameful, really shameful...


Edit: Most of my view points 9 months ago still stays for this issue, as in this post and the posts below. With one exception, that after much debates and thoughts, I think the Second Amendment still applies today, and I was wrong to say it wasn't. It is being the second in the Bill of Rights for reinforcing the First Amendment and to protect the rest of the rights. As long as we follow its prerequisites (as I described above), it is a right to ensure we have the tools to fight for our freedom, when it's necessary. Corrections made above.


Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
~Vel Dec 18, 2012, 02:51pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 18, 2012, 03:04pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
Just wanted to stop in to say that I generally agree this perspective of reasoning on current gun "rights" being excessive. Gun owners need to be required to keep better security of their guns, having them in a locked safe when they're not being used. Mental health screenings should be required for legal purchasing/carrying of a gun in addition to safety courses and checked every 6-12 months; I truly don't see how anybody can reasonably disagree with this. The argument of not being able to fight against the government is completely moot at this point; if officials went rogue or the government underwent a coupe we'd be f**ked immediately because of the government's/military's access to chemical, atomic, and bio-hazardous weapons (Frankly, I think that's wrong for the government to have that access too, but the majority of NRA types ironically support government spending and access for that kind ofs**t). Furthermore, I think that you can't talk about the news of the week also without calling attention to a greater need for offering more public mental health services in general. This wouldn't just help prevent violence, but homelessness and drug addiction as well (thus subsequently other various street crimes). Yet, there's still a significant part of the population that doesn't believe that it's the "government's job" to care for people's health - another irony, they support the army protecting their safety [read: health] but oppose taxes for the public sector offering that, wtf?

A few side comments about the youth under 25: I hesitate to say that we're "more" habituated to violence than ever before. I assume majority of youth in this country (myself included) have never speared, knifed, or shot an animal and torn their guts out; whereas this was a necessary skill for any human pre-industrialization. I'm also struggling to understand whether you're saying this generation is growing up faster or slower, and why that is. I don't know that it's just faster or slower for sure, but it is different; perhaps it has just move horizontally. Let's not forget that kids were easily exploited for labor at a way younger age even 100 years ago. Also be careful of what you notice in terms of growth, perhaps the amount of habituated youth is growing, but by percentage it's still falling because it's outpaced by the growth of those who aren't. There's still a lot of psychological research going on about this and no doubt even more to come following the increase of mass shootings this year.

Dr. Peaceful Dec 19, 2012, 11:30am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
~Vel said:
...The argument of not being able to fight against the government is completely moot at this point; if officials went rogue or the government underwent a coupe we'd be f**ked immediately because of the government's/military's access to chemical, atomic, and bio-hazardous weapons...

Agree, completely moot. Don't even need to go to that extend, just send in the Apache helicopter. It can take targets out 4 - 5 miles away, that's outside the range of any gun able to be carried by a single person. Not to even mention the drones... We're dead before we even able to pull the trigger! It takes a lot more than a stock piles of guns / ammo in ones homes to fight an enemy with military grade weapons. In a war situation like that, It takes organization (we're not John Rambo can't fight a war by oneself), cooperation (must work together, otherwise if everyone's self centered, we will end up killing each other), courage, sacrifice (lots), perseverance, fate, luck, time, and still assistance from good military forces. But again we should NOT be worrying about something like that now, the priority is that we need to make sure our children don't need to worry about getting shot when they go to school everyday!

...I'm also struggling to understand whether you're saying this generation is growing up faster or slower, and why that is. I don't know that it's just faster or slower for sure, but it is different; perhaps it has just move horizontally. Let's not forget that kids were easily exploited for labor at a way younger age even 100 years ago...

Perhaps it's not the right choice of wordings I used above, all I meant is that kids are maturing earlier than before (i.e. faster mental growth). Kids get exposed to things such as sexuality, violence, drugs, money / materials, in earlier ages than say 30 years ago. The advance in technology, especially the internet and mobile communications, has only leverage the amount of exposure of these things to kids. I forgot about child labor exploitation in the past, thanks for bringing that up. Nowadays kids are spoiled (over spoiled for some) rather than exploited, just as bad in some cases.

Bungle Dec 19, 2012, 05:34pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 19, 2012, 05:37pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
I disagree with you both so Ill take this opportunity to give the other side of this argument. The school shootings are a terrible tragedy that is for sure Im not sure that the English language has the words to describe how horrible what unfolded in Connecticut a few days ago was. The solution to this issue is not to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Much of Dr. Pazs post had to do with the differing state of the country between its founding and now and the perceived need for gun control in the wake of mass shootings. To understand the reasoning behind the second amendment you really have to understand the ideology of the founders. Americas founding documents (Declaration of Independence/Constitution) were written under the idea of Natural Rights which you can think of as things you should have in the absence of government and it is The Governments job to protect those rights not grant them. The second amendment is there to guarantee that The Government does not interfere with ones right to defend them self.

You guys pointed out the futility of trying to fight against the US Military as a lone individual with only small arms, and while this is true ONE person with small arms has no chance of winning, an uprising of a couple hundred million citizens with small arms would likely be successful. Members of the military are not mindless drones and will not drop bombs on their own neighborhoods. The threat of violent revolution is meant to be a deterrent to government overreach. The governors should fear the governed.

As for assault rifles none of the weapons used in these shootings thus far are assault rifles. A civilian AK-47 or an AR-15 may LOOK like an assault rifle but it is NOT one. They do not have burst or fully automatic firing capability, it is simply a semi-automatic (one round per pull of the trigger) long gun. Those in the media that keep calling these guns assault rifles are merely advertising their ignorance by doing so.

So what is the solution to stop these school shootings? I keep hearing people argue that the answer is to ban guns or make them prohibitively expensive or some other scheme involving tighter regulation. This is a knee jerk reaction that is not very well thought out however. What effect does a law that is not followed have? None. It is already against the law to kill another person unless your life or someone elses life is in immediate danger. What makes you think that someone that is willing to break that law is going to follow one that says no guns near schools, or you cant own a gun that has a high capacity magazine, or any gun at all? One needs only to look to prohibitions of alcohol and drugs to see how effective banning things are in the face of a determined group of individuals. All these laws will do is make it more difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

There is a reason why these mass shootings are happening in the places they do. The perpetrator is a coward and there is a large number of people who are unlikely to be capable of defending themselves in a highly concentrated area. If guns begat violence then we would see a rash of shootings at gun shows, I would argue we are far less likely to see a mass shooting at a gun show because many of the people in the area are very likely armed themselves. A potential shooter is going to be facing an army there.

This position is probably politically toxic but I would start arming teachers. Have them qualify with a pistol every year, give them the same weapons training that is given to police officers and place a handgun in a biometrically locked safe in every classroom and youll see these shootings stop. In every one of these shootings the killing stopped when the gunman ran out of bullets, the cops are minutes away and you can run a lot of bullets through a gun in a couple minutes. When seconds count having 40 or 50 armed and trained people in the vicinity would make a tremendous difference.
Something needs to be done to make the schools a much harder target for lunatics.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Dr. Peaceful Dec 20, 2012, 06:04pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 20, 2012, 06:21pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
MrBungle said:
...As for assault rifles none of the weapons used in these shootings thus far are assault rifles. A civilian AK-47 or an AR-15 may LOOK like an assault rifle but it is NOT one. They do not have burst or fully automatic firing capability, it is simply a semi-automatic (one round per pull of the trigger) long gun. Those in the media that keep calling these guns assault rifles are merely advertising their ignorance by doing so...

AR-15 is an "assault weapon" according to U.S. laws (see recent news article http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used...un-debate/ ). Yes, there's a difference between assault weapon and assault rifle in definitions. You're correct that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle by law definition: "any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge" (Reference 18 U.S.C 921 (28), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2...sec921.htm ).

However, regardless of what the technical definitions and difference of automatic vs. semi-automatic, the AR-15 can chamber the next round automatically. All you need is to pull the trigger as fast as possible to perform a rapid firing. Just as deadly as a fully automatic versions of the rifle, and probably more accurate doing it that way. Check out this youtube video, skip to 2 minute to see how rapidly one can fire a recent model of AR-15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8hN9X5z5M

Regardless, it's an excessively deadly weapon, exceeding the killing power of hand guns!

...This position is probably politically toxic but I would start arming teachers. Have them qualify with a pistol every year, give them the same weapons training that is given to police officers and place a handgun in a biometrically locked safe in every classroom and youll see these shootings stop...

I agreed those f**ker are cowards. But are you serious, arming teachers?! In Britain, most policemen don't even need to carry a gun. Here in U.S., we need to arm and train teachers with guns?! Their job is to teach, not to enforce security. Here in U.S., they aren't paying enough money for teachers to teach, not to even mention taking risks like that. How far do we want to go, let see... how about we fortify the exterior of the schools, since in this case the shooter blasted his way in? Make it like a bunker with reinforced concrete, armor plated windows, etc. Just how far do we need to go to make going to school like going to a military camp, so that some can own as much weapons as they desired?!

It's not too much to ask to give up some guns, for the sake of our children's safety, is it?

Jon Bailey Dec 20, 2012, 08:27pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Being British I'm not going to get involved in the ol' gun control argument with americans so I'll just address this:

but I would start arming teachers


seriously?? So, where would these weapons be kept? How could you ensure that a teachers side arm couldn't fall into the hands of children? what happens when a teacher who's wife has left him and taken his kids decides it may be fun to blow away the first annoying student in his class? What makes you think that a teacher would even have a chance against someone armed with a high power rifle, especially now that they are the first target when a killer enters a school? Even with training you can't impart experience in dangerous and tense situations on a person, how do you think a scene where multiple teachers panic firing would play out?

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 21, 2012, 12:46pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 21, 2012, 01:00pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
I agreed those f**ker are cowards. But are you serious, arming teachers?! In Britain, most policemen don't even need to carry a gun. Here in U.S., we need to arm and train teachers with guns?! Their job is to teach, not to enforce security. Here in U.S., they aren't paying enough money for teachers to teach, not to even mention taking risks like that. How far do we want to go, let see... how about we fortify the exterior of the schools, since in this case the shooter blasted his way in? Make it like a bunker with reinforced concrete, armor plated windows, etc. Just how far do we need to go to make going to school like going to a military camp, so that some can own as much weapons as they desired?!


Youre missing the point of arming the teachers By simply having the weapons available to the staff the school is no longer an easy target. The point is to have them there so they DO NOT EVER HAVE TO BE USED. Not so that you end up with an all out gun fight on school grounds. Like I said, the shooter is a coward, he/she is not likely to go into an area where law abiding citizens are armed and try anything like that. The reason they pick schools as targets is because the people there are defenseless.


It's not too much to ask to give up some guns, for the sake of our children's safety, is it?


Yes it is, because youre operating under the assumption that the criminals (the real root of the problem) are going to follow the new laws. They are already by very definition ignoring the laws that exist now so what makes you think they will follow new ones? If you outright ban guns I can guarantee they will still be available on the black market and a determined individual will be able to attain one anyway. You have only succeeded in disarming the law abiding public which makes them MORE vulnerable.


Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin


seriously?? So, where would these weapons be kept? How could you ensure that a teachers side arm couldn't fall into the hands of children?


Like I said the guns would need to be kept in a biometrically locked safe, something requiring a finger print or iris scan to open, built into a wall, etc Perhaps by opening up one of the gun safes a school wide alarm is set off. There are many ways to solve this problem.

what happens when a teacher who's wife has left him and taken his kids decides it may be fun to blow away the first annoying student in his class? What makes you think that a teacher would even have a chance against someone armed with a high power rifle, especially now that they are the first target when a killer enters a school? Even with training you can't impart experience in dangerous and tense situations on a person, how do you think a scene where multiple teachers panic firing would play out?


A gun is a piece of metal, it is not magical, you do not become a homicidal maniac by touching one. It is no more dangerous than a car or baseball bat or a machete. Someone armed with a samurai sword could have just as easily gone through that school and fatally injured 20+ people, a gun is just loud and there is a large percentage of the population that is afraid of and doesn't understand them.

In close quarters like the hallways of a school a long gun doesn't have the massive advantage over pistols it would in open fields. In a situation like what happened I'd take my chances with a hand gun trying to get out on my own over cowering behind the copy machine hoping the gun man runs out of bullets by gunning down everyone else first any day.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
~Vel Dec 23, 2012, 12:30am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Schools are an easy target because they're unarmed? Columbine had an armed guard, VT had its own police department, and Fort Hood was a f**king military base; none of that stopped anything.

...

Public. Funding. Of. Mental. Health.

Jon Bailey Dec 24, 2012, 06:20am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Like I said the guns would need to be kept in a biometrically locked safe, something requiring a finger print or iris scan to open, built into a wall, etc Perhaps by opening up one of the gun safes a school wide alarm is set off. There are many ways to solve this problem.


ok, so the guns are in a locked safe... how long would that take to open?

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 25, 2012, 02:53pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Jon Bailey said:
Like I said the guns would need to be kept in a biometrically locked safe, something requiring a finger print or iris scan to open, built into a wall, etc Perhaps by opening up one of the gun safes a school wide alarm is set off. There are many ways to solve this problem.


ok, so the guns are in a locked safe... how long would that take to open?


IDK a few seconds...

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Bungle Dec 25, 2012, 02:57pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
~Vel said:
Schools are an easy target because they're unarmed? Columbine had an armed guard, VT had its own police department, and Fort Hood was a f**king military base; none of that stopped anything.


The Fort hood shooting happened in a "Gun Free Zone", VT was a "Gun Free Campus" and would not allow concealed carry permit holder to carry.


Public. Funding. Of. Mental. Health.


Definitely something that should be looked into.


Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 26, 2012, 06:33pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
IDK a few seconds.


Plus reaction time, plus time to get to the safe, and you've got a dead teacher before they've even obtained their weapon, a side arm locked away is not a side arm. Who's to even say that these inexperienced teachers first reaction would be to go for the weapon in this, what most experienced, hardened if you will, soldiers term a nightmare/no-win situation. If these teachers wanted to be forces, they would have applied to the army, if they wanted to be armed security they would have applied for that job, I in my opinion as an ex forces would suggest that someone who is in the mental position where they've taken on the role to teach children is not someone you could rely on to draw a weapon and cause possible fatal wounds to another person, even in defence.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 27, 2012, 05:38pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 27, 2012, 05:39pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
Jon Bailey said:
IDK a few seconds.


Plus reaction time, plus time to get to the safe, and you've got a dead teacher before they've even obtained their weapon, a side arm locked away is not a side arm. Who's to even say that these inexperienced teachers first reaction would be to go for the weapon in this, what most experienced, hardened if you will, soldiers term a nightmare/no-win situation. If these teachers wanted to be forces, they would have applied to the army, if they wanted to be armed security they would have applied for that job, I in my opinion as an ex forces would suggest that someone who is in the mental position where they've taken on the role to teach children is not someone you could rely on to draw a weapon and cause possible fatal wounds to another person, even in defence.


I'm not denying that the teachers are a poor subsitute for a SWAT team, or that the element of surprise is likely going to result in a few dead innocents. What I am trying to say is that instead of having a situation where you have 25 teachers and 400 students that have no chance what so ever against a crazed gunman, you can have 25 or so people on scene that have some chance of defending themselves. This is going to 1. slow the gunman down because now he/she has to be far more careful while combing the hallways emptying their clips at people trying to get away. 2. could very well end up with the gunman being shot by one of said teahers defending themselves or someone else.

If this means that 3 or 4 less people die, its worth it. If it means that the gunman chooses a different target it had its inteneded effect.

Utah and Texas allow exactly what I am proposing and they aren't erupting into gun fights over every personal dispute. Many people in the US have concealed carry permits (myself included) and can carry a firearm pretty much where ever (with a few exceptions) the thing is, most of these shootings have been happening in places where the carrying of firearms is restricted.

These gunmen have a "bully mentality" if you will, they pick on people that can't or wont defend themselves, they will not pick a target that is capable of fighting back.

Pacifism is going to result in more people dying in these cases.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 28, 2012, 08:26am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
or... what we could do is ban guns, as there is already a licencing system in the US, there will be records of the majority of gun owners and as such the police have a good starting point. obviously some guns will the net, but with a ban on the ammo, parts and professional cleaning and repair many of these weapons would fall into total disservice over a relatively short period of time.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Bungle Dec 29, 2012, 02:55pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Jon Bailey said:
or... what we could do is ban guns, as there is already a licencing system in the US, there will be records of the majority of gun owners and as such the police have a good starting point. obviously some guns will the net, but with a ban on the ammo, parts and professional cleaning and repair many of these weapons would fall into total disservice over a relatively short period of time.


Yes, lets take rights away from 300 million people and destroy a $31.8B a year industry that employs 209,000 because of a handful lunatics. Could you come up with a more short sighted solution?

http://nssf.org/impact/

The issue isn't the gun, its the guy behind the trigger. Look at history, what did the alcohol ban in the 1920's do? It strenghened organized crime, created a thiving black market, increased costs for police departments, and made criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Here's what your gun ban will do...

A large number of gun owners will forfeit their weapons thinking they have no choice. Some will hide them, some will end up in a shoot out with the goverment agents when they go door to door collecting firearms. Gangs, criminals, etc... will not give up their guns but they will know that most of the pubic has been disarmed likely increasing crime in big cities. Over 200K people get added to the unemployment lines, and people in northern states now no longer have an method to effectively defend themselves from bears, cougars, and other wild animals which can be a very real threat depending on where you live. The good news is that some people will feel better knowing that there are less guns out there, the bad news is that there will be the same amount of guns in the hands of the people you don't want having them.

The lunatics who want to go out in a mass murder spree will resort to something a little less deadly but still manage to kill a bunch of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

You going to ban hammers and knives next?

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Jon Bailey Dec 29, 2012, 05:01pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
really? and just what are you basing that comment on?

It didn't happen in Australia, UK, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, India, Israel, Japan, Norway, Vietnam, and the rest of the EU has strict control over restricted weapons as well.

As for the jobs market, it would be ludicrous to believe that the gun industry would disappear in the US, as there is a large amount of manufacture for export as well as military and private security companies. In the UK severe restrictions are in place, however the gun industry since the turn of the century has only seen approximately 25% job losses, with many names remaining in manufacture, including Holland and Holland, Kynoch, Joseph Bently, Webley and Scott, Westly Richards, A A Brown and sons, Thomas Chambers, AJ Churchill and many others.

As for this annoying complaint you see from Americans of puniching law abiding people by taking away their guns. We're not talking about taking a lollipop from a child here, we're talking about taking away tools that's sole purpose is to kill and maim.

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
Dr. Peaceful Dec 31, 2012, 10:19pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Dec 31, 2012, 11:42pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
Totally agree with you Jon.

By the way, I never say we should ban all guns completely and at once. With millions of guns already in possession and millions more to be purchased here in U.S., it's simply impossible. Especially impossible with millions of people who would believe to cling on to their guns with their life. There would be too many cold, dead hands to pry their guns from. ;) It would be f**king civil war all over again.

But let's face it, the increase in guns, Did increase the number of deaths from guns, and Did increase the number of senseless mass shootings. Guns are engineered for the sole purpose of killing people (or other living organisms) with a high speed projectile from a distance away, with minimum effort and high lethality. So stop using knife / sword for comparison, it's totally irrelevant, since guns can kill without even getting close to the other person. And stop saying "guns don't kill people, it's just metal", because they do. They provide the feasibility and capability for a mentally unstable individual to commit an atrocity with tremendous casualties, which otherwise would not be feasible with lesser weapons, or at least with lesser deaths.

Law abiding citizen? Most mass shooters are law abiding citizens, before they commit their terrible crimes. Not to mention a mentally ill person, even a normal person can not guarantee their state of mind when under high stress or being provoked for violence. The availability of a gun, will just make matters worst under those circumstances. So more guns is simply not a solution! It should every law abiding citizens' responsibility to secure their guns, and reduce their arms for public safety. Assault weapons are simply a high public safety risk in populated urban areas. Even in the rural, most assault weapons are ineffective for hunting big games. So, why can't we restrict and reduce those?!

Bungle Jan 01, 2013, 10:43pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 01, 2013, 10:45pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
Dr. az said:
But let's face it, the increase in guns, Did increase the number of deaths from guns, and Did increase the number of senseless mass shootings. Guns are engineered for the sole purpose of killing people (or other living organisms) with a high speed projectile from a distance away, with minimum effort and high lethality. So stop using knife / sword for comparison, it's totally irrelevant


No the knife/sword comparison is absolutely relevant. Are you denying that mass murder can happen in the absence of guns? If you read the links I posted earlier you would know that they happen in areas where guns are banned... You are proposing a solution that treats the symptoms but does not get to the root of the problem. Banning/restricting guns is as useless of an action in stopping mass attacks as taking pain pills and decongestants is at curing the flu. Until the virus is gone you're sick and there is no amount of OTC meds that can fix any of it. The virus is this case is predatory lunatics wishing to go out in a "blaze of glory". Take the guns away and its going to be bombs, or swords, or suicide vests, or compound bows, or whatever they will find a way and more lunatics will do the same thing in copycat attacks in the following years.

Your intentions are good, but your method is wrong. Make sure that people are not defenseless, figure out some way of identifying people that fit the psychological profile of killers, and do the best we can to stop those people from becoming armed.


Law abiding citizen? Most mass shooters are law abiding citizens, before they commit their terrible crimes. Not to mention a mentally ill person, even a normal person can not guarantee their state of mind when under high stress or being provoked for violence. The availability of a gun, will just make matters worst under those circumstances.


So what are you trying to say here? anyone can snap and go on a killing spree? All the more reason to own a gun and know how to use it. I do not understand how ensuring that a larger percentage of the population is an easy victim makes anyone safer...


So more guns is simply not a solution! It should every law abiding citizens' responsibility to secure their guns, and reduce their arms for public safety. Assault weapons are simply a high public safety risk in populated urban areas. Even in the rural, most assault weapons are ineffective for hunting big games. So, why can't we restrict and reduce those?!


It should be a law abiding citizens duty to buy a firearm, obtain a concealed carry permit and know how to use the weapon they carry. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped every year by gun owners? Do you realize that mass shootings have been stopped or cut short by non-lunatics that thankfully had a weapon at their disposal when some crazy person decided to try and kill a bunch of random bystanders. The only effective way to stop a madman with a weapon is for a good person to step up with something that can match that weapon and put an end to the chaos.

The media is biased, they are only going to report on bad things that happen with guns because it helps sway public opinion toward their political agenda. Do a little digging there are good things that happen becuase of guns too, I assure you its not all bad, and not all gun owners are crazy.

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Dr. Peaceful Jan 03, 2013, 04:49pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Jan 03, 2013, 05:36pm EST

 
>> Re: TheSecond
MrBungle said:
No the knife/sword comparison is absolutely relevant. Are you denying that mass murder can happen in the absence of guns? If you read the links I posted earlier you would know that they happen in areas where guns are banned...

Yes, I did read the entire page of the Wikipedia link you posted above, before I wrote my last post. And I do agree that mass murder can happen anywhere with any method. It's a horrible crime and an incredibly cowardice act to harm school children, regardless of what the attacker's method of attack, circumstance and intention. It's quite alarming to have 3 of those attacks in the same month, in the same year (April 2010)! People in PRC are usually facing more stress in daily basis than people here in U.S., due to (but not limited to) the following factors: one, the mentality to look successful and important in others eyes is especially emphasized in China; two, the economic boom cause even bigger gap between the rich and the poor; three, a lot of schools are changed from state funded free institutes to something that parents need to paid a substantial tuition to have kids admitted, and some can hardly afford; four, stressful work environment due to long work hours, high competitions, abusive management, etc.; five, corruptions and oppressions are everywhere.

But let's look at the numbers. Let me reference the link here again, and quote some of info there.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E...%932012%29
"School attacks in China (20102012)
A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured...

On May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology, a vocational college in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men charged into a dormitory wielding knives..."

The incident in May 18, 2010 with 10 men wielding knives, that's likely an organized gang violence which is typical in that region of the country. The college students must have p**sed off some gang members. So we can subtract 10 injuries and resulted in 25 dead and 105 injured. Those are still alarming numbers, but that's 25 deaths in a 2 years period, compared to 26 deaths in a single incident few weeks ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting ). You can easily see a higher ratio of deaths if the attack method involved guns.

MrBungle said:
You are proposing a solution that treats the symptoms but does not get to the root of the problem. Banning/restricting guns is as useless of an action in stopping mass attacks as taking pain pills and decongestants is at curing the flu. Until the virus is gone you're sick and there is no amount of OTC meds that can fix any of it. The virus is this case is predatory lunatics wishing to go out in a "blaze of glory". Take the guns away and its going to be bombs, or swords, or suicide vests, or compound bows, or whatever they will find a way and more lunatics will do the same thing in copycat attacks in the following years.

I understand your analogy to flu/cold, just experienced that last week, LOL. I understand again that mass murderers can use any method for attack, as long as they have the will to do so. But at this moment in time in U.S., none other methods are more readily available, easy to operate and conceal, and efficient in killing than guns. I understand that guns are not the only issue here, but reduce and restrict guns is certainly a solution to make random mass shootings harder to achieve.

MrBungle said:
Your intentions are good, but your method is wrong. Make sure that people are not defenseless, figure out some way of identifying people that fit the psychological profile of killers, and do the best we can to stop those people from becoming armed...
So what are you trying to say here? anyone can snap and go on a killing spree? All the more reason to own a gun and know how to use it. I do not understand how ensuring that a larger percentage of the population is an easy victim makes anyone safer...

That's exactly what I meant, anyone can snap and turn violent, not necessary a killing spree, but certainly potential to harm someone. It's not easy to identify someone with a "psychological profile of a killer". The person could very well be normal at the time when he/she applied for a gun license. Then again it could be someone else who used the gun to commit violence, not the actual gun owner (e.g. Sandy Hook, Oregon mall shooting, Columbine, etc.) Also, if you look back at the history of school attacks, it's not hard to find quite few cases involved the perpetrator being the teacher or staff of the school. So that's one of the reasons why arming teachers is not a good idea.

When comes to power and freedom, there comes great responsibilities to prevent those being abused. We, as humans, are inherently sinful, and hard to resist temptations when comes to power and freedom. Guns certainly give an individual the power to against someone bigger or multiple persons, and certainly very easy to be abused because it can cause death with only a "flick" of a finger. We can't guarantee that a street full of people carrying guns is a safer street than a street with no guns. We can't guarantee our next generation is a responsible generation, when we introduce to them violence and guns in a young age. We can't even guarantee ourselves will be a responsible person every moment and every situation in our life. That's why we need laws for greater controls, restrictions, and reductions of guns. At the same time, we need to impose greater responsibilities upon ourselves to teach our next generations not to easily resort to violence, limit their exposure to violent media, and prohibit their access to firearms until an appropriate age. If parents can only teach their children to drive a car near adult age (18), why should they teach their kids how to fire a gun at a younger age?! It's total irresponsible for a parent to allow his kid to fire a weapon, when his mind is not even set to understand the consequences of misusing it.

MrBungle said:
It should be a law abiding citizens duty to buy a firearm, obtain a concealed carry permit and know how to use the weapon they carry. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped every year by gun owners? Do you realize that mass shootings have been stopped or cut short by non-lunatics that thankfully had a weapon at their disposal when some crazy person decided to try and kill a bunch of random bystanders. The only effective way to stop a madman with a weapon is for a good person to step up with something that can match that weapon and put an end to the chaos.

Please give us some examples and reference for those incidents that crimes, mass shootings were stopped by gun owners. It's not convincing just by saying it. Even trained law enforcement officers (good persons with matching weapons) can not prevent gun crimes from happening, and still facing situations where a shootout with the suspect are inevitable. Even trained and armed security officers (good persons with matching weapons) can not prevent mass shooting from happening, despite they are right there on site. Even trained and armed body guards can not always guarantee the safety of their protectees. So why would you believe a gun owner, who only practiced shooting with his guns in a shooting range, be able to respond to "a madman with a weapon"?

Here's a prime example of that despite an onsite security was in place, law enforcement was nearby, plus a law abiding gun owner was helping (and sacrificed himself), but still could not stop a mass shooting until multiple lives were lost. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting Here's a video capturing the shootout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lvw8QR26Kc

Here's an in-depth report with statics on gun related injuries and deaths in U.S.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

By the way, obviously I do not benefit politically on any of these discussions, and I do not standby any political party 100% entirely. I only standby true facts and educated reasoning.

Jon Bailey Jan 05, 2013, 10:31pm EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond
Don't waste you time, you'll never convince someone like him that guns are not the answer

"The world is a temple to the self, and these days, there's alot of believers"
~Vel Jan 10, 2013, 08:13am EST Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: TheSecond


Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.