Quantcast
Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

ganoncrotch said:
Dragon246 said:
So, do some people here even realise that it takes just an instant to pull a trigger and kill someone? It doesn't even matter if that person has even a RPG, you saw him first, and he is as good as dead from that instant, especially in close range.
Now tell me that its the same with knife and other "weapons".

In the end, I realise that I come from a part of world where guns are prohibited to civilians, and people who disagree are maybe gun owners who come from other parts. However, I prefer a world where you don't have to carry a gun with you and constantly pray that you and your dear ones never come across a psychopath with a gun. Its a needless fear I am glad I live without, thanks to the rules in the society I live.

I'd take a wild guess that the rules you live in also say not to kill someone? They do in Santa Barbara as well, I don't know what makes you think that someone who doesn't listen to rules like "don't kill people" will also stick to rules like "don't own a gun"

Let me guess, by making gun industry go boom? No guns to buy for general civilians, no seller. Psychopath doesnt get his gun, everybody lives happily.

I know, too much to ask from American society.



Around the Network
Dragon246 said:
ganoncrotch said:
Dragon246 said:
So, do some people here even realise that it takes just an instant to pull a trigger and kill someone? It doesn't even matter if that person has even a RPG, you saw him first, and he is as good as dead from that instant, especially in close range.
Now tell me that its the same with knife and other "weapons".

In the end, I realise that I come from a part of world where guns are prohibited to civilians, and people who disagree are maybe gun owners who come from other parts. However, I prefer a world where you don't have to carry a gun with you and constantly pray that you and your dear ones never come across a psychopath with a gun. Its a needless fear I am glad I live without, thanks to the rules in the society I live.

I'd take a wild guess that the rules you live in also say not to kill someone? They do in Santa Barbara as well, I don't know what makes you think that someone who doesn't listen to rules like "don't kill people" will also stick to rules like "don't own a gun"

Let me guess, by making gun industry go boom? No guns to buy for general civilians, no seller. Psychopath doesnt get his gun, everybody lives happily.

I know, too much to ask from American society.

how do you purpose the US do that, with over 400 million legal guns already in circulation, and a complete open border to the south which contributes greatly to the illegal gun trafficing.



 

Burek said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Luck said:
NobleTeam360 said:
If the gun control nuts think crime is bad now just wait when all the guns are gone from civilians, and only the criminals have them. Our neighbor to the south is a pretty good example of what awaits.

Yeah, good job not talking about your neighbor to the north. You wouldn't want to discredit the whole of your argument. I mean, seriously ? 

What? Why would I even say to the North? As far as I know Canada has similar gun laws to the United States. I could be wrong about that, any Canadians want to tell me what the general gun laws in Canada are?

As much as I despise anyone that owns a gun, and as much as I cannot comprehend that a completely sane person would even think about killing another human being, let alone actually doing it, I must, on a greater level, agree that more guns actually deters violence.

As na example I'll just broaden the scope to entire countries. US Army had no real doubts when it came to attacking Afghanistan, because they knew that Afghanis are generally disorganized and have no real weapons to pose a threat to the Americans. So they attacked them.

But, Americans believe North Korea has nuclear weapons, and that those nuclear weapons migh tbe used to defend themselves, so the Army is scared shitless of attacking Koreans. And Koreans strut around with their weapons, taunt Americans, but Americans do nothing. Because guns scare people. And they are scared that the Koreans might actually be that crazy 11th grader who has stashed away 5 rifles, 10 shotguns and 20 pistols and might take them to school.

That's why it's good that all Americans have weapons. Makes them scared of each other. And fear is the best deterrent.

So you would prefer a world where we arm all countries with nuclear weapons?



 

My Real Redneck friends


NobleTeam360 said:

What? Why would I even say to the North? As far as I know Canada has similar gun laws to the United States. I could be wrong about that, any Canadians want to tell me what the general gun laws in Canada are?


I'll fill this in. Guns are much more restricted here than in the States. You need to own a gun license, and there are different ones based on the firearm you own. There are different classes but in general, if you don't have a license for a restricted weapon then you can't own that weapon period. You also HAVE to register restricted firearms, before this applied to all weaposn but the long gun registration was destroyed not too long ago. The types of guns are also more strict, as far as I know AKs, AR15s and other (but not all) semiautos are banned, I don't know the full list but you can find it online.

What is a restricted firearm? This bascially http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm. Most of the time, it's handguns. You are also not allowed to have open or concealed carry, unless you live in the wilderness where you need to carry around a gun in the open so you don't get mauled by a bear.

Most importantly, firearms are not a constitutional right here, so yeah that's pretty self explanatory.

Canada has about 30 guns per 100 residents, about 3 times less than the US, so while it's not uncommon to find people with firearms here. Most of the time it's county folk, hunters or hobbiests that do own guns.



Leadified said:
NobleTeam360 said:

What? Why would I even say to the North? As far as I know Canada has similar gun laws to the United States. I could be wrong about that, any Canadians want to tell me what the general gun laws in Canada are?


I'll fill this in. Guns are much more restricted here than in the States. You need to own a gun license, and there are different ones based on the firearm you own. There are different classes but in general, if you don't have a license for a restricted weapon then you can't own that weapon period. You also HAVE to register restricted firearms, before this applied to all weaposn but the long gun registration was destroyed not too long ago. The types of guns are also more strict, as far as I know AKs, AR15s and other (but not all) semiautos are banned, I don't know the full list but you can find it online.

What is a restricted firearm? This bascially http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm. Most of the time, it's handguns. You are also not allowed to have open or concealed carry, unless you live in the wilderness where you need to carry around a gun in the open so you don't get mauled by a bear.

Most importantly, firearms are not a constitutional right here, so yeah that's pretty self explanatory.

Canada has about 30 guns per 100 residents, about 3 times less than the US, so while it's not uncommon to find people with firearms here. Most of the time it's county folk, hunters or hobbiests that do own guns.

Ah ok thanks for the info :),



Around the Network
PDF said:

So you would prefer a world where we arm all countries with nuclear weapons?

No, obviously sarcasm doesn't show well when written...



SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:

Let me guess, by making gun industry go boom? No guns to buy for general civilians, no seller. Psychopath doesnt get his gun, everybody lives happily.

I know, too much to ask from American society.

how do you purpose the US do that, with over 400 million legal guns already in circulation, and a complete open border to the south which contributes greatly to the illegal gun trafficing.

Oh, so do you agree that civilians can live without guns, just like they do outside US?



PDF said:

 So you would prefer a world where we arm all countries with nuclear weapons?

 

I haven't read your discussion, but the nuclear weapon analogy is poor. In one case you have guns, which can be used for defence without harming a third party. In the other instance you have nuclear weapons which ALWAYS harm third parties. In an ideal world no government or individuals would have (or rather be able to use) nuclear weapons, because the very nature of the weapon prevents it from targetting aggressors, and itself initiates aggression. So a person who uses or intends to use a nuclear weapon is a criminal, because if he uses a nuclear weapon he is harming non-aggressive persons, and if he intends to use a nuclear weapon he is threatening non aggressive persons with force, even if his main intent was to use it on aggressive persons. 



sc94597 said:

PDF said:

 So you would prefer a world where we arm all countries with nuclear weapons?

 

I haven't read your discussion, but the nuclear weapon analogy is poor. In one case you have guns, which can be used for defence without harming a third party. In the other instance you have nuclear weapons which ALWAYS harm third parties. In an ideal world no government or individuals would have (or rather be able to use) nuclear weapons, because the very nature of the weapon prevents it from targetting aggressors, and itself initiates aggression. So a person who uses or intends to use a nuclear weapon is a criminal, because if he uses a nuclear weapon he is harming non-aggressive persons, and if he intends to use a nuclear weapon he is threatening non aggressive persons with force, even if his main intent was to use it on aggressive persons.

The poster I quoted said more guns = better deterrence, then went into using nuclear weapons as an anology. 

I agree there are a number of things that make nuclear weapons scenario different from guns, most notably would be MAD.  Which is why nuclear weapons actually act as a better detterent than guns.  I was making the point that if he believes more guns = better detterence, then he must believe more nuclear weapons = better detterence. 

However this doesn't hold true.  Even though nuclear weapons have only acted as deterrents after WW2, you would not give all nations nuclear weapons.  The increased amount of nuclear weapons among different nations greatly increases the chance that a nuclear weapon will be used.   Giving guns to civilians does not increase deterrence, it simply increases the likely hood of a gun being used.   



 

My Real Redneck friends


Dragon246 said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Dragon246 said:
 

Let me guess, by making gun industry go boom? No guns to buy for general civilians, no seller. Psychopath doesnt get his gun, everybody lives happily.

I know, too much to ask from American society.

how do you purpose the US do that, with over 400 million legal guns already in circulation, and a complete open border to the south which contributes greatly to the illegal gun trafficing.

Oh, so do you agree that civilians can live without guns, just like they do outside US?

thats not what i said.

i was just wondering how you would go about insuring they dont have guns.

if you could guarantee me that nobody in all of the US to include civilians, military, police, government, and criminals, and erase all knowledge of how to make a firearm, i would support a complete ban on firearms. relunctently though, becuase i love collecting and shooting them