A terrible epidemic
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
icensing for people? Inspection and testing of weapons and how they are stored? Compulsory training and testing? Restrictions on what you can use immediately, just like most countries restrict car drivers either by licence conditions or by cost of insurance?
Unfortunately none of this would help because, generally speaking, it is criminals that do most of the killing and they'll get guns illegally.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Quite. Gun laws in France did not stop the Paris massacre.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
icensing for people? Inspection and testing of weapons and how they are stored? Compulsory training and testing? Restrictions on what you can use immediately, just like most countries restrict car drivers either by licence conditions or by cost of insurance?
Unfortunately none of this would help because, generally speaking, it is criminals that do most of the killing and they'll get guns illegally.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
We shouldn't require drivers to pass a test, have a valid licence, or pay for insurance. The really dangerous drivers manage to drive without any of those things, so therefore they don't help. :rolleyes: But of course, we should refuse to take any action to control a dangerous activity unless it provides a perfect and complete solution to the problem. We wouldn't want to do anything to reduce crime without stopping it completely, would we?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
How about a more 'proactive' approach? HOw do you stop the massacre before it happens?
-
We shouldn't require drivers to pass a test, have a valid licence, or pay for insurance. The really dangerous drivers manage to drive without any of those things, so therefore they don't help. :rolleyes: But of course, we should refuse to take any action to control a dangerous activity unless it provides a perfect and complete solution to the problem. We wouldn't want to do anything to reduce crime without stopping it completely, would we?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
So, the fact that cars cause more deaths (and suger probably too) means that it is suddenly acceptable to buy a weapon meant to kill people? How about opening the market for morphine/heroin? It doesn't kill as many people as cars do, after all :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
How about opening the market for morphine/heroin?
Nah. You can't make any money from Morphine/Heroin - without criminalisation, it's dirt cheap.
-
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against a criminal element. It's intended to allow a citizen to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. The best way to learn about the Constitution and why it was written is to watch some KrisAnne Hall videos on YouTube. Specifically, the one discussing the "Genealogy of the Constitution".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Quite. Gun laws in France did not stop the Paris massacre.
It didn't. Now lets compare the amount of incidents with guns in Europe to the US; you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here. So no, while it does not guarantee anything (as if ever), it does keep the amount of incidents lower. Another argument of yours in the dustbin.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
It didn't. Now lets compare the amount of incidents with guns in Europe to the US; you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here. So no, while it does not guarantee anything (as if ever), it does keep the amount of incidents lower. Another argument of yours in the dustbin.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here.
And you think that is because of tougher gun laws?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here.
And you think that is because of tougher gun laws?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
He thinks it because he thinks Europeans are superior to Americans.
-
"So, the fact that cars cause more deaths (and suger probably too) means that it is suddenly acceptable to buy a weapon meant to kill people? " is such a stupidly childish statement I am surprised you aren't in a care home for mentally handicapped adults.
-
Again, a nonsense-argument; you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government, and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned. Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments? :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Again, a nonsense-argument;
That's because you're ignorant of the reasons. Check out the video I mentioned above. It explains everything. Of course, you have to be willing to hear the truth.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you owning a rifle does not change anything about your current government
A bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan have proven this idea invalid. Besides that, 100 million gun owners in this country would present a sizable force.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and in case of a clash you'd still be outgunned
Which is why the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify restrictions on the types of arms you can keep/bear. The founders knew that in order to defend against a tyrannical government, the citizens would be required to have access to battlefield-capable weapons of the day.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Is that why the US is "spreading democracy" all over the world? To rid us from our tyrannical governments?
Again, the government does not necessarily represent the will of the people they govern. The US isn't a democracy - it's (supposed to be) a constitutional republic. Look it up. Beyond that, the US government is not interested in spreading democracy, and anyone with any self-awareness at all readily recognizes that fact.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's intended to allow a citizen to defend oneself against a tyrannical government.
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live. :-D
NoNotThatBob wrote:
And yet Presidents sign Executive Orders and live.
I am not a fan of the "executive order". In my opinion, it's a violation of the separation of powers in that it allows the President to legislate, which should not be within his sphere of influence. Even the DOJ should not be allow to *make* law, but look at the unconstitutional free reign to do so given to the EPA, TSA, and BATFE. The government, as a whole has strayed far from the intent and design of the framers. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes." Madison "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." - Jefferson "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Hamilton "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Webster "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Tucker If you think the nature of governments has changed since 1796, you are as stupid as they come.
-
It didn't. Now lets compare the amount of incidents with guns in Europe to the US; you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here. So no, while it does not guarantee anything (as if ever), it does keep the amount of incidents lower. Another argument of yours in the dustbin.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Another argument of yours in the dustbin.
And what argument is that?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
you'll find that there are a lot less incidents here.
And you think that is because of tougher gun laws?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Where did you get 'big city' from? The very premise of your reply is so incomprehensible that it renders the entire statement irrelevant. Just what IS your point?
-
"So, the fact that cars cause more deaths (and suger probably too) means that it is suddenly acceptable to buy a weapon meant to kill people? " is such a stupidly childish statement I am surprised you aren't in a care home for mentally handicapped adults.
-
Since you replied to a post of mine to Griff I assume you had already found something relevant. If not, then why did you respond?
-
Where did you get 'big city' from? The very premise of your reply is so incomprehensible that it renders the entire statement irrelevant. Just what IS your point?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Just what IS your point?
I made it clear enough :) But to recap, just for fun; Americans need guns to defend against their government and wild animals. Noted. :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Since you replied to a post of mine to Griff I assume you had already found something relevant. If not, then why did you respond?
