Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Terrorist attack in Florida
Topic Started: Jun 12 2016, 06:39 PM (4,859 Views)
+ Emmeth
Member Avatar
I Yoeri

I like how people say gun control doesn't work when it clearly does. Australia is a prime example.
Posted Image
My Twitch Page
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


It can work, but not always does it work if you adjust for population.
Edited by lazerbem, Jun 18 2016, 12:48 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Emmeth
Member Avatar
I Yoeri

lazerbem
Jun 18 2016, 12:48 AM
It can work, but not always does it work if you adjust for population.
What does population have to do with it? The bigger population, the bigger government and more law enforcement. No problem.
Posted Image
My Twitch Page
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

It works as much as the country lets it. Australia wants it so it does. America largely doesn't and so it does not.

In Canada it works pretty well but there is still some.pushback. however it has been some time since a mass shooting has occurred up here.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Posted Image
My point was that it(probably) lowers raw deaths but there is reason to think that it doesn't alter the actual percentage of people killed when taken by itself. Chart above is an example of this in regards to mass shootings.

However, the chart is outdated by three years, so if something's changed, my apologies.
Edited by lazerbem, Jun 18 2016, 12:53 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


@ Jar Jar Binks

Well no, the constitution was meant to protect us from the national government. The right to bear arms was meant to help people fight a fully functioning and tyrannical government, not two bit muggers that failed high school. If the government becomes a tyrannical force, random people with guns isn't gonna stop them, they need a trained military force and technology that can actually do battle with the tools the military uses, like AA guns for bombers. A shotgun won't protect your from the government. The second amendment is outdated because it's been changed from the original intention, and it's worked really well, just look at everyone who equates the second amendment to the right to buy a gun. And yes they are, but that doesn't really help your argument as they'll have guns regardless of if you have guns or not, unless you're suggesting they just go grab some shotguns and desert to the civilian side instead of defecting as a unit and taking their military hardware with them.
The second amendment was crippled until it became the right for individuals to own guns as if that'll help win a civil war. In regards to fighting a tyranny, it's ultimately useless compared to having an actual militia for reach state.

Or do you think in a amendments, aimed at curtailing the national government's power, would suddenly stick something in there to protect you from random criminals, rather than the federal government of which people were so fearful of they put in the bill of rights to assuage those fears and get the constitution inputted?

It is outdated, and we've let it become outdated. Maybe people with guns would have worked before an air force, but not today, now it's entirely the national military helping us, or failure.
Edited by Tinny, Jun 18 2016, 01:02 AM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

If every gun owner in America was responsible, the amount of gun-related accidents would be pretty much zero. Instead, people are unfortunately injured and killed purely because some gun owners are irresponsible enough to not properly take care of their guns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-powers/toddlers-involved-in-more_b_8650536.html

To be honest, an intensive course in how to use a gun, how to properly store it and what situations it's appropriate to be used in are completely necessary, and if something like this already exists, it has to be extended dramatically.
Edited by Yu Narukami, Jun 18 2016, 01:04 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 12:41 AM
I linked that in my previous post. Even the first "Mass shooting" in January by FBI/CRS standards wasn't a mass shooting. There's been 8 according to their standard, which is 4 or more killed, not 4 or more wounded.
Does wounded vs killed even matter here? Being wounded or killed is pretty much just luck. In every case people intended to do harm with these weapons, how successful they were isn't all that important.

Quote:
 
Also you should look where the majority of those shootings are happening and refer to my previous posts.


They happen in America, which is where it's a problem.

Quote:
 
You all are forgetting that American soldiers are American citizens too. They lose every right we do if they're taken from us, they would have no reason to fight us and more reason to fight with us against the government.

So...why is the government taking over something people pose as a legitimate threat? Again why would they even do it what would they gain?

Unless half the soldiers in the army are corrupt bastards they probably wouldn't turn on their own people, is that the assumption here? Odd since many Americans are proud of their army :rofl:


The amendment is outdated because the country is different now, simple as that. There's no danger of the government taking over they have no reason to do so and not much power to do so unless every single soldier is on board with the idea of killing their own people for...some reason.

Pretty much the only benefit would be is if another country invaded civilians would be able to defend themselves a bit better but much the same thing would happen as if the US army attacked, most civs with guns would be annihilated.


I think it should be much more difficult for a civilian to get a weapon but more jobs should have people using them.
If the bouncers at the club in this shooting had guns and extensive training maybe they could have stopped the guy.
Same with schools, it's not pretty to have armed guards at schools but...damn well seems necessary.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


To be fair, people without much of an airforce can last impressively via guerilla tactics. See many terrorist groups and guerilla factions as an example. Home turf advantage can mean a lot.

But this mostly helps in surviving attack from a greater power, not beating it
Edited by lazerbem, Jun 18 2016, 01:26 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


lazerbem
Jun 18 2016, 01:25 AM
To be fair, people without much of an airforce can last impressively via guerilla tactics. See many terrorist groups and guerilla factions as an example.
True but for the most part those techniques are made for you to last until the invading force leaves, if you're trying to carve out a new nation and the current government is determined to hold on, you can only last so long, there's certainly very little way to actually win a war unless another nation drops in to aid the rebels.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lazerbem
Member Avatar


Correct, but you can keep a stalemate going a looooong time. See the situations with guerilla groups in Colombia and what not. I suppose that in such an event, you might eventually make public opinion turn to favor you. Beating the army straight up wouldn't happen, but making them compromise or make the civilian population decide it's not worth it isn't impossible.

In any case, I do agree with there needing to be more of a need for training courses and mental evaluations. However, I do think that there is merit to having guns around.
Edited by lazerbem, Jun 18 2016, 01:32 AM.
Posted Image
Crazy cat cults in the woods
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

In any case I still can't think of any reason why they'd turn on their own people and I've never seen someone post any kind of logical reason why it would happen.

It's pretty much just "they want to take our guns away...that means they want to kill us"

But...why...

"They're corrupt!"


I mean why hasn't this happened here in Britain?
Even just our police force can take down like 80% of the population in a fight, a single cop can beat multiple untrained thugs without even needing a gun.
Then add in the police units that do have guns and then the actual military and the public has absolutely no chance of doing anything more than surviving.

Not sure what gives people the idea that the US government is especially corrupt. Especially considering most people who think that sort of thing think every government is usually.
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Emmeth
Jun 18 2016, 12:47 AM
I like how people say gun control doesn't work when it clearly does. Australia is a prime example.
Again as mentioned in previous posts this ties in to population and area of the country. Australia is a large country with less than 30 million people. To say gun crime is low would be accurate but Australia also has more police officers per person, almost the same amount of officers per person as the U.S yet less than 10% of the U.S population. There's more enforcement in their anti-gun policies. America has roughly 13.8x more population here, but still less than 11x the gun violence in Australia. People do die in Australia from guns because only criminal gangs freely carry them about.

To say the people want no guns in Australia would not be a factual statement. Australian Black market is crawling with illegal firearms and very high demand. Legal, registered firearms may be low but there's still plenty of illegal firearms in the country being bought and sold as we post.

@Daemon, 33% of Canadas murders are committed by firearms and Australia' is at 7.9% murders by firearms. The U.S is at 67%, which of that 68% are committed with handguns, 3% rifles, 3% shotguns, and 27% are not specified. I can't remember if it was this thread or not that I made the post in, but this ties in to population, race/culture clash or diversity, and gang activity which like Canada, Australia is largely White or Asian representing the major races, white/caucasian being 92%, Asian being 7%, and everything else being less than 1% each and while there are definitely gangs, they aren't as rampant as in America.

In the U.S Blacks account for 52% of murders in the U.S while non-Hispanic whites account for 29%, people of Hispanic origin account for 14%, and the remaining 6% is everyone else. While the murders for Blacks are largely black on black crimes and the same for white on white, and Hispanic on Hispanic, 38.9% of total murders are race on race crimes. Based on offender data, of all races, the majority of offenders are between the ages of 16-30, which is primarily the age group of gang members. It'd be a logical conclusion that to assume that while gangs aren't responsible for all senseless violence, they are responsible for most of it, including gun violence. Considering the majority of gun related homicides also happen in Gangland cities like New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and San Diego and going off the fact that criminals do not follow laws, it'd be a safe bet to assume gangs of all races are responsible for gun crime in the U.S and not law abiding U.S citizens who are explicitly given the right to keep and bear arms.

@Tinny, please reread what I said. Also the meme is still relevant.

@Lazerbem, As I stated gun ownership in America has drastically gone up under Obamas administration by his own admission no less, and gun crime has seen a sharp decrease as well, by about 25% in the past 8 years and is at it's lowest point since 1969.

@Nagito If everyone who drove a car drove one responsibly, the amount of vehicle related accidents would be pretty much zero. Instead, people are unfortunately injured and killed because some motorists are irresponsible enough to not properly take care of their vehicles and practicing safe driving habits.

[Link here]

To be honest, an intensive course in how to use a motor vehicle, how to properly drive it and what driving conditions are safe to drive in are completely necessary, and if something like this already exists, it has to be extended dramatically.

Motor vehicle accidents account for more than 4x deaths than guns in the U.S but nobody tries to regulate that much more than it already is. I honestly feel safer at a gun range than I do driving on the road around here with how many bad drivers there are.

To anyone else who posted after Nagito, I was attmempting to get a Fire Cape in Old School Runescape while typing this and finding stats, so it took me a long time to post and I missed your posts.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

You make it sound as though I'd disagree with that notion when I really don't. I totally agree with the fact that driver's tests and courses should be more intensive so the drivers out on the streets are more skilled and less prone to make stupid decisions/getting into accidents. That doesn't nullify the point I was making at all. Are you saying that because there's a bigger problem than guns in the US, we shouldn't focus on guns at all?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Also, the 2nd amendment is not outdated. If that was the case then the rest of the Constitution would be outdated too.

This is what you wrote. And like I said, it's obsolete, and its current interpretation is, if anything, a curtailing of previous rights the states had. Your rights are weaker because of that interpretation, considering it was intended to defend against the federal government, and not random criminals.
If all you have is regurgitated joke and a statement that is false and irrelevant, I can't say you're being convincing.
Edited by Tinny, Jun 18 2016, 02:33 AM.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91