1. The contestants were to create water structures for the 20th Terraining Contest. Choose one in the public poll!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Join other hivers in a friendly concept-art contest. The contestants have to create a genie coming out of its container. We wish you the best of luck!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Melee Mapping Contest #4: 2v2 - Results are out! Step by to congratulate the winners!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. We're hosting the 15th Mini-Mapping Contest with YouTuber Abelhawk! The contestants are to create a custom map that uses the hidden content within Warcraft 3 or is inspired by any of the many secrets within the game.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Gun Rights v. Gun Control | A look at the facts.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Swazi Spring, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. HappyTauren

    HappyTauren

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    8,414
    Resources:
    87
    Models:
    61
    Icons:
    23
    Packs:
    1
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    87
    A stock standard AK-47 shoots 600 rounds/minute! However it is very true that many people and armed forces use rate reducers, because it's very hard to shoot only one bullet with an AK-47 in full auto mode and because of the tremendous recoil. So to add to dracemia's post, the bullet rain on the stock gun can include 6 times as many bullets.

    The problem with this discussion is that it takes place in America, where the 'defensive strategy' usually includes 'invading other countries'. In a mentality of an average American, guns are dominantly a defensive weapon, no matter how weird it sounds to the rest of the world., and no matter what the statistics say.

    Also, people trying to argue weapons should be allowed in certain ways due to sports are weird, to say the least. This is where the western concept of 'freedom' clashes the concept of 'rights'. What right is more important, the freedom to have arms and kill, or the right to live? If we could get rid of homicide completely by banning guns (perfect scenario) would people still vouch for guns because 'we' (actually, psychopaths) need them for sport?
     
  2. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    You can do sports with guns too weak to kill anyone as well. I completely agree that precision shooting can be fun; I've tried it using various air guns.

    (in b4 people link an extreme edge-case of people getting killed by someone shooting through their eyeballs)
     
  3. Jazztastic

    Jazztastic

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    895
    Resources:
    7
    Spells:
    6
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    7
    How is a gun anything but a tool? Simply because it's used to kill doesn't make it any less of a tool.

    Better ban bow and arrows next. Those puppies aren't sport, they can kill, and also hunting is wrong and bad.

    Gunpowder is not the root of the gun. The first prototype design of a gun was done by Da Vinci.

    I'd like to see any modern human try to fight an enraged elephant, or a starved cheetah.

    Maybe kitchen knives. Some knives are designed with the sole purpose of taking lives. Do we ban those aswell?

    Nothing helps blow off some stress like going to the range with my father and blowing a box of ammo. It's a huge stress reliever for me. It serves a pretty important function in my daily life.

    Anyone who knows how to take a life would not use a firearm as the weapon of choice for domestic violence, if they were trying to desperately avoid detection. They're loud, easily traceable, and provide a false sense of security.

    Know what else can instantly take a human life? Explosives. Homemade explosives are pretty easy to manufacture. Better ban those items from the gorcery store.

    We know what guns are used for. Seeing as the pro-gun advocates undoubtedely use firearms more than the anti-gun advocates, I'd warrant that we know far better than you, what guns are used for.

    If you were being shot at, would you rather have a gun or not have one?

    No matter what your viewpoint on any issue you can use the internet to find something supporting your side.

    I'm not trying to deny that most homicides occur with handguns. But if you want to kill someone, do you think not having access to a gun would stop them?

    Ever heard of deterrence? It's the concept that you don't act, because you know that there are others who will do the same action to you. It kept the world from nuclear war for half a century. Same concept with guns.

    Who would willingly pull a firearm and try to shoot in the mall if they knew there were 5 people within 50 feet of them who had a concealed carry?

    You're right we should have none of the laws or ideals of our founding fathers. Freedom of speech is stupid I don't even know why we have it.

    The founding fathers would have had to been idiots to not realize that firearms would increase in power. As with any technology it will progress towards efficiency. As with the rest of the laws of my great homeland, I'm pretty sure it was established to last thousands of years.

    Back in a time when you could own cannons.

    I'd like to see you reload any weapon in under 3 seconds.

    So animals still have to be killed to feed you. You are just getting anal about it because a gun was used to kill the animal?

    ---------------

    I completely understand where all the anti-gun advocates are coming from, however, I don't believe violent crime will decrease from a ban on weapons. There are thousands if not millions of unregistered weapons, and smuggling weapons into the U.S. is not a hard feat. By disarming the populace, you put the populace at risk from those who would seek to harm it.
     
  4. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    408
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Sorry for off topic, but I really dislike the habit of quoting every sentence separately.
     
  5. Blackhole

    Blackhole

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    ^ Same, it happens on other forums as well and it doesn't make that person any cooler or his counter-arguments any more valid, because I call this arguing for the sake of arguing.
    ----

    @Jazztastic you cannot be comparing knives with guns and how a knife can be used for killing too. There are guns of mass murder and maybe that kind of guns need to be banned entirely, like the ones quoted with lots of rounds. It's for the same reason wny nuclears are not allowed.

    Maybe they need to design a type of gun or pistol that cannot kill too many at a time and this to become the only allowed weapon for people. The current state and use of weapons by anyone is not justified.
     
  6. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Did you


    even read my...

    wait..

    what ?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    First of all, ad hominem and gish gallop.

    Second of all, there're tribes in Africa as of right now, still hunting elephants with spears made of sticks and rocks.

    Third of all, seriously tho. Did you even understand what I was trying to say ? because you just repeated every paragraphs I made with loads of fallacies and irrelevant attempt at responding.


    Let me rephrase what I have already said in a simpler fashion.

    Tools are used to achieve goals that aid in daily life, they fix, cut, move, contain, shape and fasten. Knife is no longer manufactured with the intention of being used as a weapon ever since the widespread usage of guns. Suffice to say that guns made melee-weapon obsolete in combat. Swords are now created to be antiques and aesthetic objects and to preserve the knowledge of creating them.

    Weapons are used to kill, especially guns which was invented after the discovery of gunpowder's properties by the chinese, not Mr. Da Vinci.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun#History


    Lastly, firing a gun to stop a gun from being fired is like ... waging a war for peace, or as the internet would say ..fucking for virginity.

    edit:

    In this argument, I don't care if you shoot animal or raise them to be killed, I'm not a vegan or a fully devoted animal lover. I'm anal about it because instead of shooting at animal, humans are the the majority of bullets-recipient now a day. We barely shoot animals we eat anymore, most of them are farm-raised.
     
  7. EloTheMan

    EloTheMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    468
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr-NfNWg2ho

    Its very close but they started counting from before the last bullet is shot, so it is possible to reload an AK47 in under 3 seconds if you exclude the last shot.
     
  8. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    I am going point out a few weapons from the past and tell you why the do not encourage equality

    Pikes, Spears, Halberds etc... these weapons require highly disciplined soldiers to function and are the best close ranged weaponnot including modern weapons for head to head warfare, but because they require constant drills etc.. to be a good weapon, they do not support equality. ( the constant drilling makes it impossible for it to be a weapon for revolt, you will be caught to easily)
    Now lets talk about heavy swords, they require strength and a lot of training, so they too are out reach of the common folk.
    Now the best sword the Rapiersaber comes fairly close this weapon requires a whole lot more training to become a good weapon then heavy swords do so again they too are worthless for encouraging equality.
    Bows, Slings etc.. Require lots of training to become effective, and even once you learn how to use them you still need to practice constantly.

    Now lets look at a weapon that anyone can become proficient(ie able to hit a man sized target at normal range) with in 3 hours, the crossbow. while more training makes one more effective it doesn't make as much of a difference. What happened to the crossbow in Europe? it was banned from everyone, even when it was no longer banned by papal decree it was still illegal for serfs to possess them, a sword in a peasants hand isn't dangerous.
    Guns are like crossbows, only they are even easier to use.2
    now a lot of people here are arguing about safety etc.. But is any amount of safety worth a loss of future security?security in your liberty 1 You might say this isn't infringing on my liberty at all, in fact it is increasing it by making me safer. Remember despots always try to control power(usually weapons, though not always), medieval Europe, China, Japan etc...

    you could say I am paranoid2, I probably am, that doesn't make me less right.

    1 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)
    2 you still need to practice a lot to be able to hit a bullseye, but, a human heart is a big target and if you use a machine gun accuracy doesn't matter too much.
    3 "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips also this
    But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837


    edit my bro said I should put this, read aloud with russian accent for best effect "support Gun control its there to make safer, Comrade."
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  9. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    You lost me at the word "despot"

    I'm living in a country where democracy is as fake as nicki minaj's ass and monarch is secretly absolute.There was a huge soldiers vs. civilians unrest years ago, where troops line up and rain down AK-47 barrage on protesters carrying sticks and water bottles.



    So....... you do sound a little paranoid in a country where you could literally sue a company for not explaining how to open a can of soup.

    This right here is extremely fascinating. I've never really look at this topic in this point of view before.
     
  10. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    408
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I don't live in America, and I think of all ministers and other government officials as part of the population, so the "government could do this and that if we didn't have guns"-argument sounds strange and silly to me. Of course where I live there aren't so huge income gaps and officials aren't alienated from the rest of the population.
     
  11. Ender

    Ender

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    208
    Resources:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    wrong, in fact you are completly wrong on this point only in the eyes of 43% of americans are guns a defensive weapon in the eyes of 46% they are not.

    statistically all muslims are terrorists, all americans are obese and the sky is bright yellow, that is when taking statiscts from the same place which you are ie non refrenced and made up on the spot.

    I have some statics for you and I'll even give you refrences.
    first refer to this1 population map of the USA(though you can look up any population map, I linked this one for ease of access)
    now look at this map of mass shootings, look at the correlation of urban area's(deeper red = more population) and mass shootings(red spots on the second map). From this we can conclude that highly urbanized areas in the USA hold 90%+ of all of the USA mass murders since 1990. Now please consider that 29% of urban dwellers admit to owning guns, from this we can assume that there are less gun owners in urban areas(or at least legal gun owners) then in rural areas and yet despite this data there are more mass shootings (and more gun related homicdes) in areas that(from statistical data) hold less guns.
    From this we can see that more gun ownership cannot possibly equate to more gun crime as the areas that have the least amount of admitted gun ownership have the most gun crimes, I will not say that gun ownership lessens gun crime because I lack a gun ownership map of the USA.2

    1: I am using a population map as there is no gun ownership map that I can find and since only 29% of urban dwellers own guns I think it safe to assume that only 29% of the population in the red marked areas on the map own guns.
    2: however I would like to point out that switzerland which has one of the highest precentage(please be aware that although the USA has a higher gun to Civi ratio only 40% of civilions own guns) of private gun owners in the world( not to mention the fact the the majority of said guns are assult rifles) I would like to point out that columbia has a very low amount of firearms, 5.9 for every hundred but it has a very high homcide rate, and 84% of said homicide are comited by gun.
     
  12. twat

    twat

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    17
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I liked the part where dracemia calls Jazztastic a retard and then accuses him of ad hominen.
     
  13. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    I've been pondering about this and I've realized something.

    Among the "first world" countries where quality of life are greatly looks up to, the US of A is right up there on the list. A lot of people, me included, pictures the country being more "advance" in many aspects. That is why I personally feel as if these gun-related injuries and deaths could have been avoided in comparison to other countries on that ideal list.

    Although,
    I admit that this disappointment factor might have been affecting my argument quite a bit.


    I can't help but wonder, why isn't there as much gun-related crimes in Europian countries as the US ?

    The gifs and the statement is only one line apart for a reason.
     
  14. EloTheMan

    EloTheMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    468
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Serbia, Switzerland and Finland are the top European countries to have gun related deaths and (as far as I know) they don't have the same gun restrictions like the other European countries. I'm not an expert on the gun laws of each individual country so I'm not gonna go in on each one.

    The Kauhajoki school shooting that happened in Finland a couple of years ago was with licensed guns. (Or maybe it was the one before? So many things to keep track on here :p)
    It was the Jokela school shooting that was with licensed guns. :p
     
  15. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    408
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Kauhajoki shooting was also made with legit gun. It's really sad that these horrible shootings which could be prevented by stricter gun control keep happening. Many of the recent shootings here have been done by mentally unstable people who've just snapped and went on a spree.
     
  16. EloTheMan

    EloTheMan

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    468
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Those people were even recognized for being mentally unstable too, Matti Juhani Saari got kicked out of the Finnish Armed Forces for being irresponsible with his service rifle and was seeing a psychologist for months and yet he was given a license. It is estimated that there are up to 56 firearms per 100 Finns in Finland.
    Finland is also known for its alcohol problems so its not a good mix.

    This link covers most gun politics in Europe and various other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

    Serbia does have a very free gun policy. (The vid I posted earlier is from Serbia)

    Switzerland lets the people have their service rifle at home since their national defense is based on militia.


    I think its ridiculous to allow such free gun laws in Europe, the cold war is over (?) and people wont support an internal war. The only possible crisis that could erupt would be started by a group of people with inhuman reasons, and liberal gunlaws would only play their way. US gun politics are tricky to change because of multiply reasons but European laws should not.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  17. Jazztastic

    Jazztastic

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    895
    Resources:
    7
    Spells:
    6
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    7
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

    A gun is a tool. Simply because your definition of tool isn't everyone elses doesn't mean they're wrong. Weapons are tools.

    What do you mean what?

    Believe it or not some knives are manufactured to take lives.

    The amount of training necessary for a person to use a weapon competantly is a lot. If you were thrown into a pit with a lion and you had a spear, I'd put my money on the lion instead of the concept artist. There's a reason technology evolved towards more lethal weapons.

    Imagine this. 100 men with crude/primitive weapons against a mountain lion
    100 men with modern firearms against a mountain lion

    Which group of 100 men suffers more casualties? Which group of men could hunt a mountain lion every week to sustain itself? Which group would survive?

    Maybe that will help clarify my point. To say no human had trouble killing animals is a ridiculous statement.

    So much irony.

    Yeah and how are they doing compared to the rest of the world?

    It's called quoting, it helps you know specifically what I'm responding to, isntead of trying to freeball it and guess what I'm talking about.

    Man shut the fuck up. You actually are just making shit up.

    Gunpowder was first used in explosives. Lets cite wikipedia moar. allonthebandwagonforbanningplasticexplosives

    It's called deterrence. The fact that this world isn't a nuclear wasteland has shown how effective it is.

    Man honestly you call me retarded but your statements are contradicting. On the topic of retardation please don't make fun of retards, it isn't cool and it actually makes you look like an asshole.

    The difference is I said you. People without training are going to have a hard time reloading fast, and I doubt our friend here could even turn off the safety on a gun.

    Lol

    As someone who doesn't live in America, and is offering their statement as I think, I'm really glad you're weighing in. Stereotypes, stereotypes for all!

    I'm really glad someone has helped me look at this issue form a bigoted viewpoint. It's all about this American culture, that isn't stereotyping. All Americans think of guns this way because all Americans are alike. Lets just lump all Americans together. Americans believe in the "defensive strategy". Let me speak for the entire country full of 300 million voices

    This may be ad hominem, but your views on America are so inflated and warped by media that I really don't believe you should give your opinion. You basically admitted to having no idea what this country is like. Why do you think you can dick around in a countrys political system when you neither live there nor know the first thing about them? Why do you think you know what's better for me and the rest of my country, when I'm a native and you aren't?

    Man not even two years and we've forgotten about the Norway shooting.

    Check ElotheMan's list, since apparently you accept wiki's as valid sources.

    Now I understand you like to lump my questions all together in one post and ignore them by focusing on minor details. Let me restate my previous questions in the hope of a serious answer.

    And lets make some extensions

    Do you think we should implement a ban on everything needed to make homemade explosives? What will stop me from making a bomb in my garage?

    If the laws are old and deprecated why do we still abide by them?

    If owning cannons was legal back in the day, why do you think the founding fathers would change their opinion of everyone owning guns?
     
  18. Nuclear

    Nuclear

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    408
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    snip

    Holy flying fuck, stop quoting the every goddamn sentence separately. It's such an asinine practice.
     
  19. dracemia

    dracemia

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    Jazztastic, you've got to start forming a constructive argument with a main statement, reasons and evidence that support them and miscellaneous shits to be added on in a coherent order.

    I don't want to derail the thread but this "quoting" sentence by sentence is like a very childish thing to do. Just because you could jab at every little sentence I made, doesn't make my whole point less true. It also make arguing in a civilized manner harder because when you start using profanity in an aggressive fashion that doesn't stand on any particular point.

    I intentionally put the gifs that called your argument "retard" right above a statement that says you're using ad hominem and gish gallop and fallacies and the irony is on me? What? you can go back pages to quote one of my sentences to prove that it's contradictory but you can't check on your own to see if I was right about the ad hominem accusation ?

    Allow me to pan out the actual irony here. Ad hominem is an attack on the individual involve in an argument on his characteristics that is not in anyway directly involve in the argument. the "retard" and "getting anal" are just heated expression (which you started, if we're being immature) and aren't actually ad hominem in a sense, although many people thought so. The one I called you out on is

    Also, the part where I explain my country and my view on animal killing have literally nothing to do with this argument, so those could be a form of ad hominem. I told Ender that I think he sound paranoid (a claim which he made himself) and gave him a reason why I thought so. I also admit that it was on my part that I felt disappointed in the US being a leading country but still stuck in a simple debate that directly involve public safety at large. That still have no relation to this argument rather than it was my motivation as to why I jumped into the argument. Jabbing at that is also another ad hominem.


    Here's the thing, you can't put up a decent counter point and use small logical errors like the indifinite nouns that is absolute categorization. I have no idea what you're trying to get at, you were talking about guns as sports, which I counter-pointed by stating the true intention of it being invented. Then, you start talking about the 2nd amendment and laws. (or was it Ender?) Then, you start talking about how you pro-gun knows more about guns than anti-guns people.. or I don't know. That post literally composed of the definition of gish gallop argument, there were so many little things that could be your point but you did not develop any of them because you were busy correcting every little mistakes I made without understanding the whole point where they fit together ...and neither did you pick any point you'd focus on.



    Now back to the argument, which I assume you still had no idea what I was trying to say when you asked questions about if we should ban a lot of stuffs in our grocery shopping list because they could be combined to make explosives.

    To make it easier, this was my whole point
    Don't make guns sound like a tool that we use in daily life because they are not. Stop comparing them. Unless you cut your steak with a goddam submachien gun like the freaking Punisher, (I actually like this joke.) you alone might think that there're knives out there being made solely to take lives, for the sake of accuracy, you maybe right. But that doesn't make the very concept of modern knife any difference than a tool used to cut food.


    And I must say that the "deterrence" point is rather far-fetched even if it's logically correct. Do you really think that the only reason the alternate world of Fallout haven't occur yet (All-out nuclear war) is because the countries are afraid that the other might retaliate with the same thing ?

    Could it be that some leaders are actually humane and realize the potential damage it would befell the rest of the world tho ? They might be human enough to not try to take innocent lives over matters that would be trivial in comparison to the consequences, that's possible too, right ?

    In the same sense with guns, could you pull a trigger that take another human's life from down the barrel of your gun?

    Killing an actual human being isn't as easy as it sound in scientific theories. There're psychological complexion that human developed over the course of evolution that make us the most advanced species on the planet. The sense of relating to another of your species is part of the thing called "Humanity", it's the same reason why you feel slightly depress when someone close to you die or experience a calamity in anyway. It's also the same reason why even in a panicked state, a lot of criminals hesitate before shooting someone. (with the exception of hardened criminals)

    ps. The last paragraph was a little off-topic in regard of the main argument but it was in reply to Jazztastic "deterrent" point. To keep the argument alive.


    Personal
    Don't try another ad hominem against me being a foreigner. I lived in the US for 4 years before moving to Canada. The only reason that I'm in this country now is because of family's matter. (I lived here the longest so, that make me asian in cultural sense. So, don't argue with me the first usage of gunpowder. I've seen one of the surviving world's first flamethrower in a museum that lie within my city's limit. One minute the people were saint-like and made fireworks for the joy of it ? then the next minute, people are inherently evil and will use a gun as soon as an opportunity arise ? C'mon man, be consistent. Do we stick to "people have common sense" or "let's be real, people are selfish" ? )

    I don't claim to know about your country more than you but I did my homework and I came prepared. (I didn't really do the homework as in "I started researching all over the internet to win one debate" tho. I used some of these point somewhere else before, while some others are taken from various people)
     
  20. Zakamutt

    Zakamutt

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    132
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Silly comment

    That would be a non sequiteur, actually.

    Let's argue a fictional scenario. You are going to be attacked. You carry the same weapon (concealed carry is allowed in hypotheticland) as the attacker. Every other person carries that same weapon. Would you prefer a gun, or a knife? I think this is quite interesting, and these scenarios are a big part of what is debated here.

    What would you like if you were alone?
    What would you prefer in a crazy-guy-in-mall attack scenario?
    What would be best if you are with a small group of friends?
    Would banning combat knives have a positive or negative effect?