I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Gorilla Mask

Extreme Humor

123 Games

Free Samples

Oddee

Funny Games

Fresh Pics

Viva La Games

FreeGame Heaven

Crazy Games

Not Healthy

Gig Posters

Funny Videos

Funny Videos



Back to Listing

Colion Noir: Gun Control Vs Gun Safety

Hits: 3071 | Rating: (2.1) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:31:11 AM
if I were a tyrant I would absolutely let my citizens have guns; it would comfortably fool them into thinking they had a hope in stopping me, and would distract them from the ACTUAL ways they can stop me.


You'd be the dumbest tyrant on the planet and I'd advise you to perfect a bullet proof skull.

which is exactly what you're NOT doing because you're so fixated on guns being your tool of defence, rather than all the less glamorous but WAY more effective tools, like education, political involvement, informed voting, rallying and what-have-you.


The UK really shouldn't one to criticize on that bud. Beside you haven't kept track of the courts ruling on NSA stuff so far have you? Also you do all that and it still fail then what break out the vaseline? Seems to be your plan.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:33:13 AM
As I've said before on a number of occasions, if I were a tyrant I would absolutely let my citizens have guns; it would comfortably fool them into thinking they had a hope in stopping me, and would distract them from the ACTUAL ways they can stop me.

Again, I recognise there are ACTUAL benefits to gun ownership, and there is a debate to be had. But this is not a sensible reason.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:32:11 AM
@McGovern1981

"That wasn't the statement I was addressing it was. civilians with guns aren't much of a challenge for them."

I was talking about the American military, which is substantially more powerful than all other militaries on the planet, to a degree that makes comparisons with other uprisings and revolutions pretty meaningless.

Look, if your government gets so tyrannical that the only way to stop them is to get into a shooting war, you've already lost. What you need to do is stop them before it gets to that stage...which is exactly what you're NOT doing because you're so fixated on guns being your tool of defence, rather than all the less glamorous but WAY more effective tools, like education, political involvement, informed voting, rallying and what-have-you.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:28:26 AM
@Musuko42
That wasn't the statement I was addressing it was.
civilians with guns aren't much of a challenge for them.


Seem to be they can be. Yes War messes a place up imagine that!

So then why is there the need for the civilians to have rifles if there will be defecting military elements with howitzers and jets?

Because a revolution has never worked like that and never will. Ya why would civilian need to defend themselves during something terrible like that...

You're trying to argue a very poor reason to have guns, when there are PLENTY of better reasons.


I've given you others before and you offer poor reasoning against them like the above. Following your logic people should just bend over and take it for "safety" if things ever get bad great reasoning there.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:14:38 AM
@5Cats

"So take the guns away from "the violent people" FIRST! Then try to disarm the lawful citizens, OK?"

That's what gun control is, from what I can see: background checks, etc, to determine if a person has a violent/criminal history. At least, it's intention. Its implementation...like all implementations of an idea...probably doesn't live up to the idea.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:12:22 AM
@McGovern1981

"See Lybia, Syria, Vietnam and Afghanistan amongst many others."

None of those places seem particularly...improved...by their internal strife.

"Of course you think if god forbid that crap would happen all the military would stay loyal to the government without question and leave whatever hardware they could get behind which has never happened in the history of mankind....."

So then why is there the need for the civilians to have rifles if there will be defecting military elements with howitzers and jets?

You're trying to argue a very poor reason to have guns, when there are PLENTY of better reasons. That argument is also very hollow, because there's no additional suggestion of further action towards defending against the government (organising militia for starters?) so it comes across as a fake argument, with the goal being keeping guns, not defending against government.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26636 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:57:11 AM
@fwoogie2: My point is: you're just pointing out the obvious! If Europe has lower rates? Then OBVIOUSLY it will have... fewer murders! Disregardless of type.
I'm not argueing that the USA's rates are lwer, although there's some "statistical trickery" involved.
>>I AM saying that fewer guns does NOT automatically mean fewer murders. Mexico? Venezuela? Brazil?

Even inside the USA itself? The places with the MOST guns have the LOWEST gun murder rates. It's just a fact.

@Musuko42: You're correct: it's a cultural problem. Certain "cultures" in the USA have massive crime rates, for whatever reason, while MOST of the USA's citizens are NOT trigger-happy at all!
So take the guns away from "the violent people" FIRST! Then try to disarm the lawful citizens, OK?
It makes perfect sense to ME...

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:01:04 AM
"High Capacity Mag" also called standard issue....
"Assualt Rifle" civ model doesn't fit the requirements for that....

Imagine that politicians are bulls**ting you to push for something!

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13611 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 5:52:06 AM
But civilians with guns aren't much of a challenge for them. See the Waco seige for an example of how well that goes.


See Lybia, Syria, Vietnam and Afghanistan amongst many others. Of course you think if god forbid that crap would happen all the military would stay loyal to the government without question and leave whatever hardware they could get behind which has never happened in the history of mankind.....

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:18:11 AM
@5Cats

"Plenty of nations with high gun ownership (per capita) have LOW gun deaths."

Very true. Which leads to the possible conclusion that the people in some nations are more violent than others, for whatever reason.

With that in mind, is it really a good idea to let a group of violent people have easy access to weapons?

You can point to a country like Canada and say that high gun ownership doesn't lead to high murder rates, and you'd be partially right: all you're confirming is that high gun ownership by CANADIANS doesn't lead to a high murder rate.

Guns plus Americans, however, does seem to result in high levels of murder. We don't know if the murder rate there would still be high without the guns. Maybe Americans are just murder-prone. Maybe there's another root cause to their violence to be tackled. And nobody is saying that the root cause shouldn't be tackled as well.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:02:31 AM
@Phosphoreign

"we will be crying... even you... when there is no one left to challenge the authority of the government should it get out of control"

Challenging the authority of the government is a good thing.

But civilians with guns aren't much of a challenge for them. See the Waco seige for an example of how well that goes.

There are other ways of challenging the government. There are also other legitimate reasons to own a gun. But this particular reason is neither a good way to challenge the government, nor a good justification for guns.

Fwoggie2
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 10:53:48 PM
5cats - even if you toss in Anders Brievik's massacre of 69 people on Utøya island, it still doesn't get close enough statistically at the 95% level of confidence.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26636 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 8:25:33 PM
If you flood a nation with guns, there will be a lot of gun violence.

@Daegog: This is simply not the case.
Plenty of nations with high gun ownership (per capita) have LOW gun deaths. While others with STRICT gun laws and limited guns have MASSIVE gun deaths (per capita).
Facts > your bullship.

@Fwoggie2: That guy in Norway killed kids at a camp... similar!
The overall gun murder rate is indeed lower in MOST of Europe (but not all!) so DUH there will be fewer shootings of ANY kind. DUH!

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12741 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 7:13:54 PM
Two round limit? Makes sense.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 6:52:17 PM
@lauriloo

Before attempting to chastise others about the 2nd Amendment, perhaps you should gather a better understanding of it.

The hallmark case on this matter is the Supreme Court case DC v. Heller. In conclusion of the hearing, the court stated the following:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia..."

This is the official interpretation held by the US Supreme Court. That you hold a different interpretation demonstrates your ignorance.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 6:47:10 PM
@lauriloo

Please do Google some more. When you finish that, please reread my comment. I specifically went on with two additional examples (assault rifles and high-capacity magazines) to demonstrate my point. You apparently missed this part; you can find it in the paragraph after the one you quoted from.

Yes, those people own guns. However, they do not own the things which they are trying to ban. For example, they are against high-capacity magazines; they do not own (or use) high-capacity magazines.

Hopefully this clarifies your confusion.

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 6:34:45 PM
They changed the name to "gun safety" because the gun nuts irrationally heard "gun control" and immediately went to "confiscation", which no one ever, ever proposed. The same reason we had to go from "global warming" to "climate change" because people too simple to understand the underlying science would look at cold weather and say global warming obviously didn't exist. The terms are changed to better fit the mentality of the people trying to block progress.

This was a stupid video. What do the "four laws" accomplish if hardly anyone follows them because there's no consequence to not following them? It's like saying we don't need any laws because the 10 commandments already covers it.

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 6:25:32 PM
"when there is no one left to challenge the authority of the government should it get out of control"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You think you and a bunch of rednecks have the wherewithal to stand up to the US armed forces. GOOD ONE!! Tell me. Since the 2nd amendment says you are supposed to have a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, what are you doing to meet that requirement?

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 6:19:21 PM
"I noticed that all the gun-grabbers don't own guns themselves; "

Would you include Gabby Giffords and her husband as gun grabbers, because they ARE gun owners. Bill Maher also owns a gun. Shall I google for some more? The majority of NRA owners want some of the proposed gun laws like universal background checks. What about them?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 4:12:10 PM
I noticed that all the gun-grabbers don't own guns themselves; it must be nice to support a ban that has zero negative consequence for yourselves.

Similarly, it tends to be people w/o assault rifles who want to ban assault rifles. Additionally, those who want to ban high-capacity magazines tend not to have high-capacity magazines.

You know what I want to ban? Zoos. Zoos should be banned. Seriously - they're dangerous. I see at least two articles each year about people who are killed at zoos by assault animals; it's simply out of control.

Since I don't ever go to the zoo, I can suggest this w/o any concern for the ban's effects on me - my favorite.

Fwoggie2
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 3:07:20 PM
cs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Notable_school_shootings.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. True. But it's a helluva lot easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or your hands 5cats. Personally I like the strict gun laws in Europe. They save a lot of lives.

Fwoggie2
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1754 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 3:03:12 PM
"In a nation as big as the USA? There's going to be all sorts of "statistical anomalies" due to sheer size. Multiple death shootings are higher by number but not so much on a "per capita" basis... because there's 330 Million Americans!"

Sigh…

Since 2010, 75 people in the US have been killed or committed suicide due to school shooting incidents. Link

On your per capita basis, allowing for population differences, there should have been 1.26 times that in Western Europe since 2010 (i.e. 95 deaths). But no. There's been 5, all in France last year when an islamic terrorist attacked a Jewish school. Hardly your disaffected student or ex employee as is so often the case in the US.

All other continents are also substantially behind the US statistica

Daegog
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 414 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 2:41:59 PM
If you flood a nation with guns, there will be a lot of gun violence.

I don't understand why there is an argument. When practically anyone can walk down to walmart and buy a gun, deaths will fairly frequent.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26636 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 2:03:16 PM
The latest shooting? The gunman was stopped because an armed police officer...
... I mean "School Resource Person"...
... ran towards the sound of gunfire. The shooter knew an ARMED cop was coming and killed himself rather than continue shooting students.

In "Gun Free" schools? The cop would have had NO gun as well. Countless lives were saved by that Cop and his gun.

Food for thought!

In a nation as big as the USA? There's going to be all sorts of "statistical anomalies" due to sheer size. Multiple death shootings are higher by number but not so much on a "per capita" basis... because there's 330 Million Americans!

Phosphoreign
Male, 30-39, Western US
 301 Posts
Monday, December 16, 2013 1:59:54 PM
@teq78: yes... we will be crying... even you... when there is no one left to challenge the authority of the government should it get out of control... I for one am careful about what I post on the internet, what commentaries I write... because I don't want to get audited next year. Think about it.

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.