Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Dec 29, 2012.
A full clip of .223 is a lot of fun at least for me
US Revolutionary War reenactment^^
It glorifies guns. Good/bad?
Mostly it's just standing in a line firing blanks at the other side's line, and drinking beer with them afterwards. Gunpowder smoke leaves you very thirsty, and re-enacters (at least over here) are usually quite nerdy and very nice people to drink with if you're into history and stuff.
I don't know about it glorifying guns though. In my experience it teaches you to be careful with gunpowder (not the anemic smokeless variant) though. It's can be nasty stuff if you don't treat it properly. Random funfact of the day: Unlike the modern stuff, gunpowder is not a propellant, it is an explosive. It's not a hight explosive (doens't burn supersonically), but an explosive nevertheless.
I fapped to this.
Guns, if used to wipe-out homo-sapiens are authorized fire at will
Feel free to go first. Make sure you post it on Youtube so we can laugh at it.
I support the Constitution and the right of the people to protect themselves and their family from anyone/ anything. I believe that is a God given right and if that means using an AR-15 for that purpose so be it. Anyone/ anything threatening me or my family will not have a good day as long as I have that right.
You need this,a far better firearm then the Ar 15.
Where did you pop up from?
If someone threatened my family they would have an extremely bad YEAR, and all without an assault weapon. We have a right to bear arms, that doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it.
I'm not a hippie
But i voted "gun ban" (i'm the one ) , because i would like a world without guns. Totally without.
It's an utopic idea BLABLABLA , i know i know... But we don't need weapons to live.
If guns did not exist there would be no need to have to protect because the enemy would not have.
American children are conditioned to have a weapon because their parents have.
In others countries , there is not this attachment for guns and people live good. And no more injustice. No more violence. Maybe less.
There's no vote for "I don't give a fuck how many guns Americans want so long as they keep them out of my country."
In my country, it's
- be an adult,
- don't be mentally ill,
- don't have serious prison convictions for violent offences,
- have a safe place to keep the guns where your kids can't easily get at them,
... that type of thing.
It's not what I'd call ludicrously stringent requirements.
If you're happy with the US murder rate - highest in the world - then who am I to argue? I live in a safer country than you. If you enjoy the danger to yourselves and your families, keep supporting the NRA.
Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
Nah, lot's of people kill each other. The problem in the US is twofold:
1) Murder rate is very high for an OECD country
2) Easy access to high capacity, rapid firing (auto and semiauto) makes massacres more common.
The first problem is legal, social and historical and possibly demographical and will take some time and efforts to do something about. The second problem is what is being addressed here.
So long as violence is seen as a possible solution to problems, humans will continue bumping each other off. Unfortunately, governments set the example, and governments tend to be murderous.
1 and 2 are both true, but I don't agree that they're separate, unconnected problems.
There's not such a big social/historical/demographic difference between the US and (for example) the UK or Canada (except arguably for Quebec).
We all watch the same violent movies, listen to the same violent music, share a similar history and culture, etc.
The legal aspect - what weapons are and aren't allowed - is of course, different. And not that much else is.
Canadians, Brits =/= Americans, in terms of readiness to employ violence as a solution, excepting perhaps at the level of government/military.
This is now a New Band Name thread.
I don't think so. Do you have any docs or stats for that?
Do tell ... ?
As a matter of fact, I have.
You'll need to click this link, below, and read.
I agree that the firearm-related death rate is a lot higher for the USA than for comparable countries.
The part I don't agree with is your contention that the cause for the difference in firearm-related deaths is cultural rather than (say) legal.
The numbers above don't imply anything about what caused them. Clearly the USA is more violent - but that doesn't mean that it's more violent because of cultural differences.
Myself, I don't see big cultural differences between the first-world free-market representative-democracy nations.
And I don't think it's coincidence that the country with the most permissive gun laws also has the highest number of murders. Obviously correlation isn't causation, but still. Nations with more restrictive gun laws have less murders per capita - that's just a fact.
If there are these major cultural differences then what are they? Does America really have a more violent recent history than Germany or Japan? Do Brits really watch less violent movies than Americans? I don't think so.
Maybe it's the question of the terminology, but people do what they want to do regardless of legislation.
Murder has been prohibited forever, but has this stopped anyone?
Others do, and there demonstrably are.
Also, your use of the term "first-world" is incorrect, if you meant to include the US.
If you look on that WP list, you'll see some (pejoratively-designated) "third-world" countries lower on the death scale than some "civilized" nations.
Maybe the standards used to date need to be called into question.
Some countries don't even have a military budget. One might argue that it's because they're poor... but maybe in some cases, it isn't so. I invite you to do your own research.
No, they don't.
Laws change people's behaviour.
Of course it has.
Otherwise there'd be no point in us having any laws at all.
OK, what are they?
You're the one making the assertion; I'm not willing to try and prove (or disprove) it for you. That's your job.
(Your point about 'first-world' versus 'third-world' nations is well-made; I haven't addressed it partly because it's sort of off-topic and partly because I sort-of agree with you).
Here's a quick G scholar search for "effects of legislation on behaviour". As you can see from a quick look at these articles, it's difficult to convincingly argue that "people do what they want" regardless of the law.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=effects of legislation on behaviour
Right. That's why there are less people dead nowadays from unnatural causes.
Compared to those other times before there were any laws, you're saying?
sure put paid to all that foot-cutting-off.
But seriously folks, for those who think that laws have no effect at all, think about the only place on Earth where there is no rule of law: Somalia.
It's a prosperous paradise of upstanding, gentle citizens, isn't it?
What's that, Skippy?
A shit-hole ruled by warlords, you say?
Yes. Without laws, humans wouldn't have a native speck of decency and fair-play to them.
We should all just collectively an herro nao in sheer disgust at what rough beasts we are.
Straw man argument - that's not what I said.
I was arguing that "people do what they want to do regardless of legislation" is untrue.
Which it demonstrably is.
Laws have an effect on behaviour. To me this is obvious, but there's plenty of academic studies measuring the effectiveness of particular laws.
Obviously effectiveness varies by law - some are more effective than others - but the idea that the world is divided into Good People (who follow ever law) and Criminals (who ignore every law and do whatever they want) is naive at best and ingenuous at worst.
s/Good People (who follow ever law)/Good People (who follow every law)/
SOME people do what they want to do regardless of legislation.
Examples: ad nauseam.
Enough semantics. Just fucking understand it. Or read the news.
But very few people are total sociopaths.
Even sociopaths respond to incentives and disincentives (e.g. punishments such as fines, prison time, etc).
Around here, if I even see someone with a handgun, I'd be on the phone to the police; they would send what is (in US terms) a SWAT team, who would arrive within 4 minutes and either arrest or shoot dead the gun owner (on some memorable recent occasions, shoot them dead with no warning). It's a powerful disincentive which works well.
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't agree. There's an important difference.
I'm unlikely to start agreeing just because you swear at me and tell me to - it's not a compelling argument.
I do. Another school shooting.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!