Everything's coming up Treehouse


You are not connected. Please login or register

Debate Thread

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 22 of 25]

526 Re: Debate Thread on Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:41 pm

War gets people riled up. Peace doesn't.

View user profile http://justhellapornoallthetime.com

527 Re: Debate Thread on Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:29 pm

Tuomey

avatar
King Under The Bridge
Journalism has become less important than voyuerism.

View user profile

528 Re: Debate Thread on Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:28 pm

We have problems in our nation and we need to address 'em, so here goes.
Gun control. Let's do this.
I have heard many arguments that it's pointless to restrict access to guns because people will just get them illegally. I have never bought a gun illegally or at all, but I am smart so I imagine if I put my mind to it I could get one. I think it would be a lot harder than walking into a store and straight-up purchasing one. It's been proven that when it is illegal to do something, people still do it, but certainly it acts as some deterrent to buying a gun? If you don't need one for illegal purposes then you would not buy a gun illegally and risk consequences, surely.
The argument that if one makes it illegal to buy a gun people will simply murder with other weapons is ridiculous to me. It is far more difficult to murder someone with a knife, rope, or blunt instrument than with a gun.
My chief argument is that regular everyday people who own guns do not practice firearm safety. They are dangerous instruments of destruction and shouldn't be treated as a household item is. There are thousands of deaths every year, usually those of children, from domestic accidents involving firearms. These guns are not a necessity and should not be in use.
What if someone breaks into my house? If someone is breaking into your house it is most likely not done in order to kill you, and negates the necessity of killing them.

I apologize if this seems premature to you in the wake of our most recent tragedy, but it seems to me the shooting of innocent bystanders is becoming more frequent. That these were innocent children is wrenching and horrifying, and I would very much like to prevent this in the future.

View user profile

529 Re: Debate Thread on Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:59 pm

Lady Stardust wrote: That these were innocent children is wrenching and horrifying, and I would very much like to prevent this in the future.

Well, I am sorry, but... Tought shit.

I mean, yeah, people dying is terrible. But there is literally not a single thing that you can do to prevent murder.

It's not more common now than it was, it's just that we hear about it instantly. And all the time.

If guns were completely banned, or, hell, if they didn't exist, these things would still happen, because when you are set on killing someone, you will do it. Sure, it's harder, but... So? It will still happen.

Sure, gun control might limit who uses it. But it will limit it in a bad way. As it is, anyone can buy a gun. If we made guns illegal, then that means only people who really, really want a gun will buy them. And that means either people that just love guns, or people that are planning on using them to kill someone.


Your arguement is that the regular people don't practice firearm safety. Ok, so, banning them is the best course of action? How is that the gun's fault? Guns are dangerous, and the people who make that purchase should know that guns are dangerous. If they mishandle their purchase, and end up killing someone, that is their own fault.


People who buy cars should know that if they misuse their vehicle, then they can end up hurt.


People who buy power tools should know that if they misuse their equipment, they can get hurt.

Guns are weapons designed only to kill, yes, but so are bows. So are swords. People buying guns aren't buying them with the intention of killing. Hell, a lot of the time, they aren't even buying them for protection. They're buying them to just shoot. Targets, skeet shooting, whatever.

If someone breaks into your house, well, a lot of the time, it's still illegal to shoot them. Especially kill them.

But, say, what if you live in the country, and you have to shoot animals trying to get into your chicken coop, or something? (Not just making this up, this happened all the time on my old farm.)

That's a specific example, of course, but so is someone breaking into your house.



Sure, I don't think people should just be able to walk into a store and buy guns, but they most certainly are not useless, and they should not be illegal. I don't own guns now, but I have lived around firearms all my life, and let me tell you, if a kid gets into one of the family guns, it is either a fucking dumbass, or it's parents are fucking dumbasses.



So, I guess my point is, yeah, it's sad these types of things happen. But we cannot prevent them. Taking away guns, or even adding more restrictions on how guns are bought really doesn't help that much.

View user profile

530 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:18 am

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
I completely agree with Ziggy on this. Every time this kind of impulsive reasoning comes up about "Well, if someone else there had a gun, they could have shot the guy", they're basically saying the entire country would be much better off by devolving into a giant Mexican standoff.

Tragedies will happen, there will always be crimes. Having everyone owning guns isn't going to make these things disappear, if anything, allowing everyone to have guns is just increasing the likelihood that when someone snaps, they will have a gun close by. This whole thing is very much a prisoner's dilemma kind of situation. "If noone has guns, everyone is safe, but if that one guy has a gun and we don't, we're screwed. We should all have guns then! But this isn't safe at all. No guns then!" etc...

I think the proper compromise would be to actually let the trained professionals (ie. the cops) handle the gun-related action, rather than having random people have a crack at acting out their favourite Die Hard scenes and hoping they're on our side.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

531 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:49 am

Gorgro wrote:I completely agree with Ziggy on this. Every time this kind of impulsive reasoning comes up about "Well, if someone else there had a gun, they could have shot the guy", they're basically saying the entire country would be much better off by devolving into a giant Mexican standoff.

Tragedies will happen, there will always be crimes. Having everyone owning guns isn't going to make these things disappear, if anything, allowing everyone to have guns is just increasing the likelihood that when someone snaps, they will have a gun close by. This whole thing is very much a prisoner's dilemma kind of situation. "If noone has guns, everyone is safe, but if that one guy has a gun and we don't, we're screwed. We should all have guns then! But this isn't safe at all. No guns then!" etc...

I think the proper compromise would be to actually let the trained professionals (ie. the cops) handle the gun-related action, rather than having random people have a crack at acting out their favourite Die Hard scenes and hoping they're on our side.

I don't think that has anything to do with the people who want to be allowed to carry guns. Not the rational ones, anyway.

A man in China attacked 23 people with a knife yesterday, 22 of them being children.

In 2010, a man with a knife killed about 20 people in China, and wounded about 50, all with a knife.

It's not about "Oh, if I have a gun, I could have shot and killed that person." Elementary school children generally do not have firearms. Nor do teachers. Guns are not permitted anywhere near schools, normally.

My point is, making guns illegal would do no good. 99% of the people who own guns are perfectly normal, non-rampaging individuals. 99% of people who own knives generally do not assualt children with them.

This could have been done with the man's bare hands, and he still would have been able to kill all those kids. It would not matter.

People kill. People murder. That's how people are, and nothing we ever do can 100% prevent this kind of thing from happening.

View user profile

532 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:30 am

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
I think there's some confusion about what we actually mean by gun control, to some people anyway. I see it was meaning we should, somehow, try and ensure guns do not find their way into the hands of the irresponsible, much in the same way we license people to drive a car.

Naturally this is problematic: I believe the guns used in this incident belonged to the shooter's mother.

Part of me thinks that this is the inevitable consequence of having so many guns in a country and things like the Second Amendment. I'm not sure if this is a problem we can even deal with rationally.

View user profile

533 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:38 am

Tuomey

avatar
King Under The Bridge
There are more options than the two extremes.

A person who can prove themselves responsible enough to own a gun should be allowed to own a gun, in my opinon.
Have them take compulsory gun safety classes (unless they're a cop or similar, I guess, that would be pretty redundant) and give them a thorough psych eval before letting them own a gun.

Ensure that they have a safe storage place for the gun - even if they intend to use it for home defence because everyone has people over sometimes.

Keep track of who has what weaponry and how much ammunition.
If someone has an unregistered gun, that should be a serious offence.
If someone has an oddly large amount of ammunition then they should be visited by a cop and/or be able to provide a reason for having that much ammunition.

Redo the psych eval every X amount of time and if they seem dangerous, confiscate the weapons and make them see a shrink for a while.

Guns are extremely dangerous - in fact it's what they're designed for - but I don't think banning them completely is the answer.

You need a licence to drive a car, and you won't get one if you don't pass the theory test and the practical test. You also won't get one if you have a condition that makes it unsafe for you to drive one, such as epilepsy.
Basically, I think it should be the same for guns.

Unrestricted ownership of firearms was much less of a big deal when the US constitution was written because the guns were much less advanced.

View user profile

534 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:09 am

Tuomey wrote:There are more options than the two extremes.

A person who can prove themselves responsible enough to own a gun should be allowed to own a gun, in my opinon.
Have them take compulsory gun safety classes (unless they're a cop or similar, I guess, that would be pretty redundant) and give them a thorough psych eval before letting them own a gun.

Ensure that they have a safe storage place for the gun - even if they intend to use it for home defence because everyone has people over sometimes.

Keep track of who has what weaponry and how much ammunition.
If someone has an unregistered gun, that should be a serious offence.
If someone has an oddly large amount of ammunition then they should be visited by a cop and/or be able to provide a reason for having that much ammunition.

Redo the psych eval every X amount of time and if they seem dangerous, confiscate the weapons and make them see a shrink for a while.

Guns are extremely dangerous - in fact it's what they're designed for - but I don't think banning them completely is the answer.

You need a licence to drive a car, and you won't get one if you don't pass the theory test and the practical test. You also won't get one if you have a condition that makes it unsafe for you to drive one, such as epilepsy.
Basically, I think it should be the same for guns.

Unrestricted ownership of firearms was much less of a big deal when the US constitution was written because the guns were much less advanced.

Why aren't we in charge of everything?

Seriously, we find answers to problems people have been debating about in a few posts

View user profile

535 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:21 am

I would imagine that there are people with power who have the same positions that we do, but implementing the ideas has got to be a difficult process.

View user profile

536 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 am

Gorgro

avatar
Glorious Leader
Indeed. I'm not saying guns should be illegal, but the requirements for owning them should be a lot stricter. People should be carefully judged to be capable of owning a gun or not, rather than handing them out to just about anyone.

View user profile http://treehouse.justforum.net

537 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:50 am

JT_the_Ninja

avatar
Ninjafleet Captain
Dewmann wrote:I would imagine that there are people with power who have the same positions that we do, but implementing the ideas has got to be a difficult process.

That. Very much that. The problem with government is it has ideas, ideas about what could work and what should work...on paper. The most powerful being in the world is the lowliest bureaucrat behind a desk, holding your paperwork.

The problem is not with the tool, but with the tool who used the tool. Protect us from that, not from the inanimate object. []

View user profile http://www.jttheninja.com

538 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:49 pm

Well, see, the problem is, there isn't a big sweeping "Gun law."

Every state has different gun laws. California, for instance, has pretty much the exact same gun laws as 2Me just thought up. And it's not exactly what you would call "Safe."

In Wyoming, nearly 60% of people own guns, and it's not a very high-crime state.


And, Im not saying more guns= less crime.

In Louisiana, about 50% of people own guns. And it's pretty much the place where all the criminals go.

Im simply saying that guns aren't the problem here, and it really does not matter. It's as easy to steal a car as it is to steal a gun, and whether you have a license of not doesn't really matter to the types of people who do these things.


For instance, did you know that owning, and buying Meth is totally illegal? Like, big time illegal?

Yeah. And how much did that help? Only the people who aren't desperate to do Meth follow those laws. The people who are going to do Meth are going to do Meth regardless of whether or not it is illegal.


Knives are dangerous weapons, and, as you can see, they are capable of killing and hurting just as many Elementary school children as a gun is, but no one seems to care who gets a knife or not. I can easily take my care and drive it into the mall and kill tons of people, despite all the tests and such we have to do to get one.


My point is, guns aren't the problem. Guns kill a lot of people because they are so easy to get, yes, but if they were not easy to get, or, if they didn't exist, then people would just use something else (Like, in China, where gun-control is extremely strict.)

What we need to do is focus on the people who do these. Usually they have mental problems. That's where we should start. Get them help, or, throw them off a cliff as a baby, whatever. But it's their fault, not the tool's.

View user profile

539 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:36 pm

What you're saying doesn't make me want to give a gun a home so I can cuddle it and love it. Tools that enable people to violently kill other people are not tools for everyone to own. Sure, access to knives is not restricted, but it is so incredibly easy to kill someone with a gun in comparison to a knife that it is an issue that I find slightly less pressing.

View user profile

540 Re: Debate Thread on Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Lady Stardust wrote:What you're saying doesn't make me want to give a gun a home so I can cuddle it and love it. Tools that enable people to violently kill other people are not tools for everyone to own. Sure, access to knives is not restricted, but it is so incredibly easy to kill someone with a gun in comparison to a knife that it is an issue that I find slightly less pressing.

Not really. It's faster to kill someone with a gun because you don't have to walk up to them, but that's about it. Knives are easier to use, easier to get, and silent.


Cars are tools that enable people to violently kill other people. So are large dogs. And walking sticks. And your hands. And basically anything else you can think of.


A hammer, a hatchet, a 2x4, a saw.

You can kill people with pillows, for fucks sake.

You can say "Sure, but all those things have other uses, too!" Yeah, so does a gun. You can hunt with guns, which is something many people enjoy doing, and some people depend on it. You can just shoot recreationally, too. Bows are made purely for killing (And recreational sport) and yet no one cares who owns those. It's easier to use a gun, sure, but someone trained with a bow can kill just as many people.


These violent shootings aren't just spur of the moment things. There is planning involved. If they had to, they would plan even more.


What I am saying is, there is no point in banning or restricting firearms any more than they already are. If no one could get to guns, they would use something else to murder, like they did for the 3,500 years or so before we had guns.

Doing like 2Me said wouldn't help either. I would be willing to bet that most gun sales are not from stores. If Joe Blow down the street has a shotgun, and you give him $600 cash for it, he won't ask too many qustions. My dad bought cars for 12 fucking years without a drivers license. And not used, either. He bought it straight from the dealer. He just used cash. If someone is going to use a gun for murder, he probably won't care too much that it is unregistered.


If we restricted guns, it would simply turn into a big underground business, like drugs. Or alcohol during Prohibition.


Guns are not something you should take home and cuddle. Guns are tools, like hammers, or screwdrivers. Most of the guns you can buy are built for recreational shooting, or hunting, and unless you use them for bad things, then they won't be used for bad things.

View user profile

541 Re: Debate Thread on Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:47 am

Tuomey

avatar
King Under The Bridge
Top Hat Zebra wrote:
Lady Stardust wrote:What you're saying doesn't make me want to give a gun a home so I can cuddle it and love it. Tools that enable people to violently kill other people are not tools for everyone to own. Sure, access to knives is not restricted, but it is so incredibly easy to kill someone with a gun in comparison to a knife that it is an issue that I find slightly less pressing.

Not really. It's faster to kill someone with a gun because you don't have to walk up to them, but that's about it. Knives are easier to use, easier to get, and silent.


Cars are tools that enable people to violently kill other people. So are large dogs. And walking sticks. And your hands. And basically anything else you can think of.


A hammer, a hatchet, a 2x4, a saw.

You can kill people with pillows, for fucks sake.

You can say "Sure, but all those things have other uses, too!" Yeah, so does a gun. You can hunt with guns, which is something many people enjoy doing, and some people depend on it. You can just shoot recreationally, too. Bows are made purely for killing (And recreational sport) and yet no one cares who owns those. It's easier to use a gun, sure, but someone trained with a bow can kill just as many people.


These violent shootings aren't just spur of the moment things. There is planning involved. If they had to, they would plan even more.


What I am saying is, there is no point in banning or restricting firearms any more than they already are. If no one could get to guns, they would use something else to murder, like they did for the 3,500 years or so before we had guns.

Doing like 2Me said wouldn't help either. I would be willing to bet that most gun sales are not from stores. If Joe Blow down the street has a shotgun, and you give him $600 cash for it, he won't ask too many qustions. My dad bought cars for 12 fucking years without a drivers license. And not used, either. He bought it straight from the dealer. He just used cash. If someone is going to use a gun for murder, he probably won't care too much that it is unregistered.


If we restricted guns, it would simply turn into a big underground business, like drugs. Or alcohol during Prohibition.


Guns are not something you should take home and cuddle. Guns are tools, like hammers, or screwdrivers. Most of the guns you can buy are built for recreational shooting, or hunting, and unless you use them for bad things, then they won't be used for bad things.

The difference here is that guns are designed to kill things.
A gun, regardless of whether you intend to use it for hunting, self defence, target shooting or simply a collecter's item is designed for the express purpose of sending little pieces of metal out of tube very fast into someething so that it gets hurt.

Also, just because people will still do things illegaly doesn't mean a law shouldn't be passed.
The whole point of there being legal guns and illegal guns is that if someone gets caught with an illegal gun - even before they do anything with it - then they get in trouble.
Criminals will get guns illegaly, despite what anyone does, yes.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be stopped. People break all laws but no one says "sure, meth, whatever, it's too hard to stop".

View user profile

542 Re: Debate Thread on Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:26 pm



But that difference doesn't matter in the slightest. Just because you can use something for daily tasks doesn't mean you can't kill with it, and you can bet your ass the person who is getting a hammer to the face isn't thinking "Oh, well, this is STRANGE. How is he using that hammer in a bad way? HAMMERS AIN'T SPOSED TO DO DAT?"

Once you are using it to kill someone, it becomes a weapon. Just because it's not designed to be a weapon doesn't mean it can't be used as one.

A hammer, regardless of whether you use it to build, or kill someone, is only designed for driving nails into things/pulling them out.

It's not that murder is too hard to prevent. It's that it is completely and totally 100% impossible to prevent people from murdering one another.


How do you expect the police to find the unregistered firearms? Are they going to do a weekly, door-to-door search of everywhere in the US? Or are we just going to hope that they happen to walk by a cop with their weapon drawn? I mean, it makes no sense. I mean, what you propose wouild do nothing at all. The fine, upstanding citizens would have registered firearms, and the people who want to shoot children will just steal their guns, or use any of the 145246354357 unregistered firearms that would be out there. It just won't do anything.


Im not saying that we should do nothing about it. Im saying that making it illegal or more regulated just wouldn't do anything. Meth is illegal, really illegal, like, it's a felony to just own meth, regardless of whether it's registered with the state. And yet, millions of people do it.


View user profile

543 Re: Debate Thread on Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:55 pm

It isn't socially acceptable to do meth. Guns are perfectly acceptable for people to own, do tricks with, and to be informal with in day-to-day life. And they're designed to kill people.
If we changed that I think we'd see some progress.

View user profile

544 Re: Debate Thread on Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:44 pm

Lady Stardust wrote:It isn't socially acceptable to do meth. Guns are perfectly acceptable for people to own, do tricks with, and to be informal with in day-to-day life. And they're designed to kill people.
If we changed that I think we'd see some progress.

Cars are perfectly acceptable to own, do tricks with, and be informal with in day-to-day life. And they're giant boxes made of metal capable of going faster than any creature on earth, and they are fueled by explosions.

So, clearly, we should take them off the streets, and only let trained professionals use them, right?


Im not making fun of you, but do you see how that's a bit silly? What exactly do you think it would change?

Would people no longer kill each other?

Would theft no longer happen?

View user profile

545 Re: Debate Thread on Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:15 pm

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
A car is a fairly important thing in people's day to day life. You need it to go to work, go shopping, take your children to places. A gun isn't really used in the same way.

View user profile

546 Re: Debate Thread on Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:43 am

Some people rely on guns to eat.

Yes, some people still hunt for their food. It sounds crazy, but it's true.

But beyond that, it doesn't matter if they're used daily. Hell, I could buy a gun and just put it on my dining room table forever, and I should have every right to do so.

Just because we don't use it often, doesn't mean it's ok to take it away.


But even if it was, that leaves an even bigger problem. Can we take cars away, if people started using them to perform more violent crimes?

No, of course not, that's stupid.

View user profile

547 Re: Debate Thread on Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:52 am

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
Top Hat Zebra wrote:

Cars are perfectly acceptable to own, do tricks with, and be informal with in day-to-day life. And they're giant boxes made of metal capable of going faster than any creature on earth, and they are fueled by explosions.

So, clearly, we should take them off the streets, and only let trained professionals use them, right?

Well, isn't this something we already do, to a degree? We license people to drive. This doesn't stop every drunk driver or psychotic car-murderer, but is it unreasonable to think it stops some irresponsible people from using a car?

This brings me round to the issue of gun control again. As the Newtown shooting has demonstrated it wouldn't and couldn't end all gun crime, everywhere. But could it reduce it? If the Newtown shooter hadn't taken his mother's guns, where would he have gotten one from?

View user profile

548 Re: Debate Thread on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:05 am

anons renews attack on hate group westboro baptist church
are the church guys the dudes who protest at funerals?

View user profile

549 Re: Debate Thread on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:35 am

Jonny

avatar
Prince of the Squirtle Squad
Apparently, yes. Not sure why they would want to picket the Newtown funerals though.

I understand why Anonymous does what they do. Unfortunately they come across as pretty smug, self-satisfied people whilst doing so which puts me off them.

View user profile

550 Re: Debate Thread on Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:22 am

Tuomey

avatar
King Under The Bridge
I have to point out that in places where guns are illegal this sort of thing really does happen less.
I've never heard of this happening in Ireland or Britain or most of Europe really.

So, gun laws will indeed help, even though they won't entirely eliminate the problem.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 22 of 25]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 12 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum