The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > SHH Community > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2013, 09:15 PM   #26
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
If you want to live in a civilized society, you regulate what people can and can not do, or own. You have to sacrifice some personal liberties in return for others. That's the basic principle of law and order.

The gun rights people are coming of as children who only care about their toys. And that's what guns are are to many people here. A hobby.

Guns, especially semiautomatic rifles, are not action figures. They're not even paintball guns (which can cause minor injuries). They're extremely deadly weapons.
I wouldn't want one if it wasn't.

What you are failing to understand is that criminals, by definition, care not at all about the basic principles of law and order. So while you're busy sacrificing your personal liberties in the name of some perceived notion of law and order, Joe Criminal is scoping out your pad because you're now an easy target.

You haven't provided any sound reasoning why I should have to give up my personal liberties due to what criminals do with a certain type of gun, especially one that accounts for so little of overall gun deaths. And that none of those bans or restrictions address, even one iota, the problems of what cause criminal behavior in the first place.

So by all means, give up YOUR personal liberties if you feel you must. I'd rather keep mine. You haven't given me a good enough reason why I should.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:29 PM   #27
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,285
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.

Newtown should have never happened. The shooting at least, was avoidable. Those living with insane people under their roof should not have semiautomatic rifles lying around. But some people just can't be bothered with paperwork.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:02 PM   #28
Kelly
Hoity Toity Administrator
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 58,068
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

The Gun-Ban people need to get a better message, and messengers....the people that are speaking up in the media, really don't know what they are talking about. When I know more than they do to know.....wow, they got that wrong. THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.....Including the President, they all need to do some research and study a little before they get on tv and radio and make fools out of themselves.

__________________
'Listen to yourself and in that quietude you might hear the voice of God'… Maya Angelou
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:11 PM   #29
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment IV - Part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
But see, that's not an accurate analogy. You wouldn't ban drunk driving. That's the same as banning murder. No, to compare with a ban or restriction on guns, you would have to ban certain types of alcohol or restrict their amount. So, we would ban all hard liquor and restrict people to one can of beer per day. Going by that logic, of course.
In terms of restrictions for alcohol, they do have a limit of alcohol you can have in your blood when you are driving so that is a government enforced regulation. The Government does put that rule into enforcement to try cut down on drunk driving but much like doing tougher background checks or cutting down magazine sizes, it doesn't/won't stop drunk driving completely(or in the case of gun laws stop all murderers).

Also using the alcohol comparison they do have other rules they enforce with booze such as you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol(and if a store gets caught selling to minors they get heavily fined) so I believe making an analogy using booze and guns does hold some weight because both are substances we really don't need, alot of people want and need to be regulated in some fashion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly View Post
The Gun-Ban people need to get a better message, and messengers....the people that are speaking up in the media, really don't know what they are talking about. When I know more than they do to know.....wow, they got that wrong. THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.....Including the President, they all need to do some research and study a little before they get on tv and radio and make fools out of themselves.
Where I believe the gun ban people go wrong is putting way to much focus on stuff like Newtown(ie events that might happens 1-2 times a year but in terms of actual kills it is a very small percentage of the 30k killed every year). Once you turn events such as Newtown as the primary focus why we should make gun laws, you are just peddling fear to people like the pro gun side peddles fear that some guy might come in the middle of night and rape you at gun point and only a gun can protect yourself


Last edited by SV Fan; 04-07-2013 at 10:19 PM.
SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:51 PM   #30
hammerhedd11
OHaiMark
 
hammerhedd11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,278
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.
The problem with the "I don't want to ban guns but..." argument is where do you draw the line? If you believe that banning some guns works, why not all guns? Why not go all the way? It's hard to argue in favor of "banning some guns" as the answer without also agreeing with "banning all guns".

__________________
Avatar made by Kane

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
hammerhedd11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:59 PM   #31
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,285
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammerhedd11 View Post
The problem with the "I don't want to ban guns but..." argument is where do you draw the line? If you believe that banning some guns works, why not all guns? Why not go all the way? It's hard to argue in favor of "banning some guns" as the answer without also agreeing with "banning all guns".
Surely you wouldn't argue the reverse. Gun bans don't work, so all weapons should be legal. Cut to a sporting goods shop selling battle rifles and grenade launchers.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 11:06 PM   #32
hammerhedd11
OHaiMark
 
hammerhedd11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,278
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Then you're implying that because those weapons are suddenly legal, all hell would break loose, ignoring the fact that legal gun owners are not crazed lunatics wreaking havoc upon the public.

__________________
Avatar made by Kane

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
hammerhedd11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 11:14 PM   #33
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,285
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammerhedd11 View Post
Then you're implying that because those weapons are suddenly legal, all hell would break loose, ignoring the fact that legal gun owners are not crazed lunatics wreaking havoc upon the public.
For the sake of clarification, you're not arguing that people should be able to sell battle rifles and grenade launchers over the counter, are you?

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 11:26 PM   #34
hammerhedd11
OHaiMark
 
hammerhedd11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,278
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

It doesn't matter. The point is, we already have a multitude of killing machines available to the public, and, as of this moment, for the most part, our cities have not devolved into wild west free-for-alls full of bloodthirsty maniacs. So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?

__________________
Avatar made by Kane

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
hammerhedd11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 11:28 PM   #35
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammerhedd11 View Post
So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?
Both and you probably can add 101 other things to the list of problems that cause gun violence. No one thing will instantly stop gun shooting but there is some laws that might help in curbing the amount of deaths down(that don't involve banning ALL guns)

SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 03:38 AM   #36
Webfoot Hero
Side-Kick
 
Webfoot Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,749
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
Both and you probably can add 101 other things to the list of problems that cause gun violence. No one thing will instantly stop gun shooting but there is some laws that might help in curbing the amount of deaths down(that don't involve banning ALL guns)
But it seems the gun control advocates only want to touch on the superficial, instant gratification aspect of controlling gun violence and focus only on the guns. They never try to get to the long-term root causes of the violence (poor education, poverty, untreated mental health, and poor child rearing to name a few that are all interconnected with one another) because it's not the headline grabbing stuff they want to parade around and it's a lot of work they would rather pass off to someone else. Gun violence is merely a symptom and gun banning is merely covering up a symptom rather than curing the cause. I'd say identifying and treating mental health would do more to curb gun deaths since nearly 2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicides, not from people going on rampages with AR-style weapons.


Last edited by Webfoot Hero; 04-08-2013 at 03:51 AM.
Webfoot Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:00 AM   #37
Thundercrack85
Side-Kick
 
Thundercrack85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,285
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammerhedd11 View Post
It doesn't matter. The point is, we already have a multitude of killing machines available to the public, and, as of this moment, for the most part, our cities have not devolved into wild west free-for-alls full of bloodthirsty maniacs. So the argument boils down to; is it the guns that are the problem, or people themselves?
Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.

Thundercrack85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:50 AM   #38
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment IV - Part 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
In terms of restrictions for alcohol, they do have a limit of alcohol you can have in your blood when you are driving so that is a government enforced regulation. The Government does put that rule into enforcement to try cut down on drunk driving but much like doing tougher background checks or cutting down magazine sizes, it doesn't/won't stop drunk driving completely(or in the case of gun laws stop all murderers).

Also using the alcohol comparison they do have other rules they enforce with booze such as you have to be over 21 to buy alcohol(and if a store gets caught selling to minors they get heavily fined) so I believe making an analogy using booze and guns does hold some weight because both are substances we really don't need, alot of people want and need to be regulated in some fashion
But those rules don't attack the problem at it's source. Before the first drink is taken. I don't think it stops drunk driving at all. It's an after the fact law that is only enforceable once you see the effects of the alcohol if you're fortunate enough to pull them over. Usually, you don't need to see the BAC to know their weaving all over the road or driving erratically. It's merely a guideline for prosecution to applicably enforce the law, but you haven't done one thing to stop the drunk driver before he takes a drink.

It's not that you just made a booze and guns analogy. It's that you didn't go far enough with comparing what you'd do with booze to get it close to what you want to do with guns. You're not just checking the mental deficiency of the person after they've already committed the crime to see if they've reached some arbitrary limit designed to keep them from committing the crime. A ban or limit is designed to keep it from happening. It historically doesn't. You need to attack the source.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 05:58 AM   #39
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
Dead children should be a good enough reason.

But I feel I am wasting my time here. I do not believe in an England-style gun ban. But I do believe that such deadly weapons need more oversight. Mandatory background checks for example. Seems like a rather modest proposal, but it's a start.

Newtown should have never happened. The shooting at least, was avoidable. Those living with insane people under their roof should not have semiautomatic rifles lying around. But some people just can't be bothered with paperwork.
The problem is that you think that semi-automatic rifles would be the only thing that would have more "oversight." You think that the government would leave well enough alone and just ban AR15's and we'd never hear another peep. I really don't think you're thinking it through. What good would training do in that situation? I am certainly all for firearms training, but what would it have done to keep that from happening?

I have no problem with background checks. Most gun owners don't. The problem arises when what I'm buying gets listed. If I have no record of mental illness or criminal behavior, then the Government doesn't need to know what I have or am buying. None of the tools the government uses for registration like ballistic fingerprinting, have been any boon to solving, much less restricting, crimes. By all means, institute background checks. As long as it's just a background check, and once I pass it, I'm not restricted further. After all, I'm not the problem, and restricting me doesn't make anyone safer except the criminals.

You see, what you think of as a background check and what the politicians want to institute for a "Universal Background Check" is two different things. We have a taste of it here in NY. You don't really have to ban or even confiscate anything. You can simply use arbitrary laws that are so restrictive your firearm becomes useless.

It all becomes a catch phrase. "Well, at least we're doing something." There are many things that could have been done to both notice and treat or help Adam Lanza (Remember him? The guy who actually killed those kids you keep mentioning.) before he killed those people. But a lot of the mental illness help he could have received was dismantled because the government couldn't be bothered with the paperwork.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 06:05 AM   #40
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.
OK, let's think for a moment. The certain kind of weapon, read: AR15, is used in so few crimes that it doesn't even warrant it's own category. It's listed among other rifles and shotguns. In fact, fully automatic weapons are used in even fewer crimes. Criminals can still get them however. A lot easier and less expensive than I can. But the point is that in your society of psychopaths, criminals, and violently insane people, you're going after the tools that they use, and not only that, but the ones that they use the least.

That's forward thinking for you.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 07:20 AM   #41
hammerhedd11
OHaiMark
 
hammerhedd11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,278
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundercrack85 View Post
Answer the question.

And it does matter. Think for a moment. In any population you are going to have psychopaths, criminals and violently insane people. Obviously a civilized society is going to restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.

Just imagine how much damage a terrorist could do if high-end explosives were easily acquirable. Or even a more mundane example, with a spree-shooter acquiring a fully automatic rifle, with a grenade launcher option.

You really should put some more thought into this.
I'm not going to answer the question because it is wholly besides the point. Your folly is that you think that simply because a weapon would be made legal would suddenly a "terrorist" use it for illegal means, as if the restriction is the only thing stopping him in the first place.

__________________
Avatar made by Kane

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:
hammerhedd11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:56 PM   #42
Victarion
Cut
 
Victarion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,992
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Some of Thundercrack's examples cause far more damage than the weapons they're looking at banning. You really should have put some more thought into this.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Trevorrow
But with all this talk of filmmakers “ruining our childhood”, we forget that right now is someone else’s childhood. This is their time.
Victarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:03 AM   #43
wiegeabo
Omniposcient
 
wiegeabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Look behind you...
Posts: 36,281
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Instead of wasting energy fighting to ban guns, both sides should be focusing their energy on promoting responsible ownership.

Events that talk about the dangers of mishandling guns.

Free trainings and tutorials on things like proper cleaning and storage.

Government incentives like rebates on gun safes and lockers. Even insurance companies might want to get in on that one.

And, of course, harsher penalties for irresponsible handling of firearms. There are thousands of accidental shootings a year that this could stop, without ever having to touch who can own what.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
90% of people are in love with wiegeabo. The other 10% are liars.
wiegeabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:33 PM   #44
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Not sure if this should go here but

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...abbing-attack/

At least 14 wounded in Texas college stabbing attack

Sort of sad when first thing you say to yourself is well at least he didn't have a gun or what are the chances that a school violence spree in Texas doesn't have a gun.

SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:39 PM   #45
kedrell
ThatsAlotOfNuts!!
 
kedrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 17,014
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Time for Obama and the Dems to try and ban X-acto knives.

__________________
You know, it occurs to me that Captain America is basically the superhero equivalent of Mary Poppins. Practically perfect in every way and all that stuff.
kedrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:42 PM   #46
wiegeabo
Omniposcient
 
wiegeabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Look behind you...
Posts: 36,281
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

So we ban knives now, right guys?

Sadly, this is all that will happen if we "get rid of guns". We're just lucky they haven't started using backpacks full of molotov cocktails yet. Toss one of those in a classroom, and see what happens. We might actually wish they just went back to guns. At least bullets can miss.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
90% of people are in love with wiegeabo. The other 10% are liars.
wiegeabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:46 PM   #47
Webfoot Hero
Side-Kick
 
Webfoot Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,749
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Shows that guns aren't the cause of violence; just a tool being used by whichever crazed person wielding it.

Webfoot Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:00 PM   #48
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiegeabo View Post
Sadly, this is all that will happen if we "get rid of guns".
Personally I don't consider people wounded(knives) instead of killed(guns) as equal evils both are bad for sure but given the choice of 2, I much rather be wounded then killed.

SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:03 PM   #49
wiegeabo
Omniposcient
 
wiegeabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Look behind you...
Posts: 36,281
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

And yet the problem still goes untouched.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
90% of people are in love with wiegeabo. The other 10% are liars.
wiegeabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:03 PM   #50
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiegeabo View Post
And yet the problem still goes untouched.
Well finding ways to get guns away from crazies is a start but surely not the end to stop such things

SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.