Gun Control

DeletedUser

zd3no said:
It's painfully idiotic to have said that, but ultimately we are just as important as every other living thing on this planet. To kill for fun is wrong. To kill to extinction is wrong. To think yourself above nature is wrong. therefore to be human is almost wrong in itself, but while we are at it we are better of with no guns whatsoever.

I come from Central Europe and currently living in Ireland...UK and Ireland police carries no guns except for special forces. Central and eastern Europe countries to my knowledge allow their police to carry guns. General population have no guns, in fact in all my 25 years of existence, I didn't see a single one person with a gun in his or her possession. To cling to the fact that you need a gun for your protection is out of the question in "my" Europe.

rant over :)
Click to expand...
You're right, we are just as important as any other living thing and to kill for fun or to extinction is wrong, that's why there are laws about that. That's why there's a hunting season and you need a licence. What about families who's survival depends on what they hunt that season? Are they above nature? I don't think so, because they are part of the food chain with the other animals. Each animal has a defense mechanism. Humans are weak, but what they lack in claws, fur etc they make up in intelligence and skills. Humans don't have claws, they build their own weapons. This is not being above nature. This is completing the natural cycle. Is fishing wrong too?
I come from Europe as well. I come from a "no gun" background as well. I've lived most of my life in Europe. Yet I came to understand and defend the right to own a gun.
 

DeletedUser30224

Then you clearly forgot that you do not need a gun in your daily activities. With the animals I was refering to your comment that a particular gun is good for killing coyotes.

Ever since we domesticated animals, there is no need to hunt. But I understand hunting and fishing. But no hunting for sport. You see, when you fish for sport, you can release the fish, when you shoot a dear it isn't walking no more. By your name I take you come from Romania, the same like myself ... now in good conscience tell me that our wild life in Romania or anywhere in europe is a good thing. When I was small, and that was no more than 18 years ago, I could still see wild dears on the fields, foxes, rabbits and so on ... now you are lucky if you see a rabbit.

That was my point on being above nature. We exterminated surrounding animals not to quench our hunger but because we could, because it was convenient for us to do so. If someone lives on a farm and there are dangerous animals lurking in the vicinity, does he needs a gun to protect himself? What about the right to go and exterminate these animals so that he doesn't need to stand guard 24/7 ? There are consequences for each action we take. I take you are now living in States ... thin about the atrocity people with guns did to the landscape of America. Mass genocide by people with guns. Poor Indians got almost exterminated and you celebrate that with Thanksgivving day ... how beautiful. Think about what any power did to inferior beings and keeps doing to this very day.. Wars are fought, lost and won by using weapons to kill. Now nature does kill, it's the way of things, but humans kill en-masse. Maybe we should have claws only to defend ourself, but we have Intelligence right? well let's use the damned intelligence. I can talk forever to no avail as you'd always find counter arguments to what I am saying, and most probably my case is not air tight either, but the point I want to make is that I still think intelligent human being of this age has nothing to do with deadly weapons in at his possession.

Most of us does not need to worry about animals anymore, we've killed them expertly already, and we have police, special forces, armies and what not to protect us against other people ... we don't need no guns in our daily lives. If Europe can do it, so can any other state or am I wrong?
 

DeletedUser

You are wrong. You did say you did not read the whole thread. It's been repeatedly explained why a general gun ban is simply the worst move the US gov could do. Even Hellstromm, who's pro-gun control has agreed that due to it's location, size and wide borders, banning gun ownership would not be a positive thing in the US. Illegal gun trade would sky rocket.
Victor was trying to make a point saying how easily guns are smuggled from the US into Mexico. It does not matter where the guns come from, they can just as easily smuggled from Mexico to the US as they are from the US to Mexico. Drugs are a very good example of how easy it is for smugglers to cross borders with their merchandise.
Plus, what happened in Europe and in our country did not happen here. The US was a democracy from its birth. Romania has been a democracy since the end of december 1989. Our generations and many generations before did not have a right to bear arms. The background is different. The mentality is different. Guns are not very accessible for criminals, so civilians feel safe defending themselves with baseball bats and knives. Romania does not have such a big drug problem either. When I was a child, pot was unheard of. In the US, several generations now had easy access to illegal drugs and such. Drugs play a huge part in the crime rate here.
Street gangs in Europe fight with bricks and bats. Street gangs in the US fight with guns. A gun ban would not reduce the number of illegal guns, it would only increase it.

PS: do not forget that those people who you think were so heinous against american indians, african americans and so on, came primarily from Europe, from our blood. We're not special cause we stayed behind. Look at the Bosnian war. Look back at communism and everything that came with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser30224

I do not forget that long before we even claim to have a historical footprint on the europe, Egyptians, Mayans, Persians and countless other cultures were enslaving and killin people for pleasure, I was simply pointing out the more recent genocide in our history.

Regardless of that, you do not need guns to make order, you need something else. Seems to me that States have a problem if the decision to ban or not ban gun-waving is held up and debated by the concerns of increasing smuggling.

Make no mistake, the decision has nothing to do with what is right and just, but what is more politically advantageous and profitable.

It's a thing of concept not a thing of need. I am comparing Europe not because of our brilliant ability to solve problem or any such noble cause, but because Europe is the one continent I happen to know...tiny emphasis on know.
 

DeletedUser

What is right and just? What is right and just is for politicians to not interfere with peoples' rights and to not exempt themselves from laws imposed on the population. What is fair is to allow citizens to have a chance to defend themselves against criminals who will have guns, whether there's a ban on them or not.
It is the cruel reality and I don't see a solution to it anytime soon.
If the president wants to take away our guns, I hope he disarms the secret service and not defend himself with guns as well. Think that will happen? Heck no! Because he knows if someone wants to take a shot at him, he won't use a slingshot, no matter how many bans he puts on guns and what harsh punishmets he imposes. He should not be more "equal" than others, like the pig in Animal Farm.
 

DeletedUser31931

Duduie, are you suggesting you want America to become Communist? Because if you do the Americans might decide to exercise "their constitutional right to kill you." Of course the President is higher than an average citizen, he is he president is he not? The reason he needs guns to defend himself is that terrorists from other countries are coming after him, terrorists with big bad nasty weapons. Terrorists that are much more likely to target two groups of people. A) The President and high ranking military and political officials and B) Huge gatherings of people. With tighter gun control laws, it will make things much harder for those terrorists to get into the country with guns. Oh well, as you previously pointed out, they make bombs, but those bombs take time and in that time they can be tracked down (people leave a trail when they make a bomb, especially since most stereotypical Americans are going to remember (please remember this is a form of stereotypical american description, not my own) a shifty Asian who bought $100 of fertilizer and they see it.) Then guess what. The police and the Secret service go and capture/kill that guy using the guns they have, because they are trained professionals and can be trusted with guns. As for when the Secret Service go abroad, they are just like the army then (undercover in a dangerous environment where guns are needed to defend yourself/attack enemy), and if we went door to door in the US asking people how they would feel if we took all the guns away from the army people would call us morons.
 

DeletedUser

Suggesting I WANT when I say that the officials should not be more "equal" than others? I am suggesting they kinda are when they shouldn't be. A clear cut example is the ObamaCare. They passed it with the condition that they will be exempt from it. Now how fair and democratic is that? :)
What I am suggesting is that the president should impose on himself the same defense methods he is offering the population. Civilians were hit at 9/11 not the White House.

PS: I was a child when my home country was under communism, I don't understand how you could even think I would wish to live through that again!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Hey Duduie how about starting a new thread on Communism because it wasnt really ever that, no more than America is really Capitalist

Psssst get it back on topic please before it drerails totally I havnt seen the mention of gun control in the last few posts ;)
 

DeletedUser30224

Communism is an idea that works beautifully on the paper but not quite so well in practice. But I will not try to explain that to any American, you guys are so brainwashed already that I would just be wasting my breath.

This so called debate saw my last post here, like I said, I just wanted to say I'd gladly have it no-guns for citizens...I never said anything about police and authorities as such to be defense-less ... how did the president come into this LOL. YOu are a lost cause both zemelci and duduie.

P.S. ROmania as a country(I mean good of the country as a whole not individuals in it) got the highest power and wealth during the commusism not what crap followed after...we are still recovering not from what communism did to us but corruption that followed after and still lingers.
 

DeletedUser31931

Communism is brilliant. I can totally agree on that, a communist society can never work due to the fundamental flaw of humans. Greed.

As for 9/11, are you suggesting that with guns they would have stopped it? OH wait a minute, they had guns when 9/11 happened, that didn't stop it did it? No, 9/11 happened due to lax security controls which I can assure you won't be happening again sometime soon (they scan teddy-bears for weapons in some American airports).

A breif summary of this argument:

We've made good points
You've ignored our points or come up with a half baked attempt at a defence
We've seen through your flaws and exposed them
You've ignored our points and claim we have ignored yours.
We've denied this and made further points.
You've derailed the argument to try and win.
We've beaten you yet again
You've refused to accept defeat.
Now you will say I've got it all wrong and it's all the opposite.

Happy now? :)


EDIT: As for Obama care, I'm not an American (and I was going through a stressful period of life at that time) so I'm not exactly clued in as to what that actually meant for Americans.
EDIT: This argument has run it's course, Victor, lock this thread please.
 

DeletedUser

Zemelci said:
Communism is brilliant. I can totally agree on that, a communist society can never work due to the fundamental flaw of humans. Greed.

As for 9/11, are you suggesting that with guns they would have stopped it? OH wait a minute, they had guns when 9/11 happened, that didn't stop it did it? No, 9/11 happened due to lax security controls which I can assure you won't be happening again sometime soon (they scan teddy-bears for weapons in some American airports).
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that terrorists target people, not the president. Your argument was flawed for this reason and another one: like you just said, guns could not stop it, whether people were armed or secret services. So your opinion that the president needs guns to defend himself against terrorists is idiotic.

Zemelci said:
A breif summary of this argument:

We've made good points
You've ignored our points or come up with a half baked attempt at a defence
Click to expand...
Who are you to judge me? Why are you making this about me?
Zemelci said:
We've seen through your flaws and exposed them
Click to expand...
nope
Zemelci said:
You've ignored our points and claim we have ignored yours.
Click to expand...
nope
Zemelci said:
We've denied this and made further points.
Click to expand...
nope
Zemelci said:
You've derailed the argument to try and win.
Click to expand...
nope
Zemelci said:
We've beaten you yet again
Click to expand...
Really? When? You have a rich imagination
Zemelci said:
You've refused to accept defeat.
Click to expand...
nope
Zemelci said:
Now you will say I've got it all wrong and it's all the opposite.
Click to expand...
Now I will say this attempt of a summary of yours is ridiculous.

Zemelci said:
Happy now? :)
Click to expand...
I am always happy.

Zemelci said:
EDIT: As for Obama care, I'm not an American (and I was going through a stressful period of life at that time) so I'm not exactly clued in as to what that actually meant for Americans.
EDIT: This argument has run it's course, Victor, lock this thread please.
Click to expand...
It is not your thread to ask Vic to close it. If you are done, please walk away.
 

DeletedUser15641

Duduie, you don't really have any rights to ask someone to walk away in a thread you made although that you made it. I say gun control would work but it does take some freedom from peeps with firearms and the need to have such weapons for security purposes or even safety issues as I see in my opinion that there is not a lot of safety for anyone in the whole wide world, yet saying that there is a safe place is ridiculous due to someones hunger for violence etc. If you take away guns, maybe he/she would get it illegally or even worse which is to make up a new firearm or weapon and such weapons can be fatally deadly if it was some bright creatively minded mad person who made it.
 

DeletedUser34315

TUG, if he can't ask them to leave, neither can others ask for a thread lock.
 

DeletedUser

Duduie said:
No, I am saying that terrorists target people, not the president. Your argument was flawed for this reason and another one: like you just said, guns could not stop it, whether people were armed or secret services. So your opinion that the president needs guns to defend himself against terrorists is idiotic.
Click to expand...

OT...

Duduie said:
Who are you to judge me? Why are you making this about me?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous, first you claim that I'm personally attacking you, then put me on ignore, now you do the same thing to Zem, when neither of us are guilty.

Duduie said:
nope
nope
nope
nope
Really? When? You have a rich imagination
nope
Now I will say this attempt of a summary of yours is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hate to say it again, but...Denial, the most predictable of human responses. You haven't read a word of our posts have you?

Duduie said:
It is not your thread to ask Vic to close it. If you are done, please walk away.
Click to expand...

You have no right to say that.
 

DeletedUser31931

All I'm saying is that you are turning this into a slagging match Duduie whilst refusing to listen to our arguments, this is Debate and Discussion, not ignore other arguments that are good and slag. This thread is null and void of a purpose. I can't be bothered to post here again. So yes Duduie, through denial, a bit more denial and some more denial of the truth you have, according to yourself, won the argument. Congratulations, I hope you feel happy.
 

DeletedUser15641

Gandalf Greyhame said:
TUG, if he can't ask them to leave, neither can others ask for a thread lock.
Click to expand...

That's what I am saying, please be in topic. I get hammered by mods, why don't you three or four get hammered?

In topic, so what's a better solution than gun control?
 

DeletedUser

I will give credit to Duduie for keeping this thread going.

Now, Duduie I am responding to your rebuttal of my post:

Duduie said:
We can dance around terms till we get dizzy, it still won't change the fact that you are saying the same thing as I am saying, without admitting the one true fact: the AR15 is not more deadly than any semi-automatic handgun and it does not compare in fire power with the M16. They just look the same and feel the same.
Click to expand...
You completely ignored the bump-fire stock, which legally brings that weapon to 900 rounds per minute, and likewise completely ignored the statements I made about the behavior of the projectile fired from an AR15. So, how about some data:

"When the M16 cartridge is fired and the bullet is propelled down the bore, the bore’s rifling imparts a gyroscopic spin to the bullet. This gyroscopic rotation is needed to maintain point forward stabilization of the bullet as it flies through the air. This method of bullet stabilization is identical to the rotational spin applied to a football when thrown by a quarterback (American football).

The Earth’s gaseous atmosphere is approximately 400 times less dense than the body's soft tissues. When the M16 bullet strikes and plows into the body, the rotational spin that stabilized its flight through the air is insufficient to maintain its stability as it flies through dense tissue. The bullet typically penetrates point forward for approximately 4-5 inches before it begins to seek a state of stability in the body.

The bullet’s pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal centerline. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet’s stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.

As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees and is traveling sideways through flesh, the stress of tissue resistance to bullet passage can overpower the physical integrity of the bullet. The bullet has a groove around its midsection called a cannelure. The purpose of the cannelure is to permit the mouth of the cartridge case to be crimped tightly against the bullet shank to hold it firmly to the case. The cannelure weakens the structural integrity of the bullet's copper jacket.

At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth." ~ paraphrased from, "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets." International Defense Review 1/1989, 59-64. Martin L. Fackler MD.​

M855.jpg

Duduie said:
As for the hunting argument: I don't think anybody goes hunting with a handgun and a bunch of defensive rounds. They do just as much damage to the meat.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. According to Gary Roberts, D.D.S. in, "The Wounding Effects of 5.56MM/.223 Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Carbines Compared with 12 GA. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant." Wound Ballistics Review 3(4), 16-28; 1998, there is a substantial difference. Btw, The shoulder-fired carbine he's referring to is the AR15s.

Duduie said:
The real reason why assault rifles are pushed towards a ban right now is because cosmetically they look convincingly deadly to the population and they were used in recent mass shootings.
Click to expand...
No, it is because they ARE convincingly deadly for the population, based on scientific/medical evidence.

As I previously stated, you are watching silly PowerPoint presentations created by ignorant njubs instead of reading peer-reviewed scientific/medical reports written by experts in their respective fields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top