It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
no, it is not.... 
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 144. (Read 450471 times)
Problem with the idea of gun control in the USA is that it's too late...
Of course gun control is a rather good thing I think. It brings more security in a society. But for that you need to be in a society where guns aren't already spread absolutely EVRYWHERE else control can't be applied!
Of course gun control is a rather good thing I think. It brings more security in a society. But for that you need to be in a society where guns aren't already spread absolutely EVRYWHERE else control can't be applied!
The only gun control that works is removal of the knowledge worldwide about guns and the making of them.
The gun is the equalizer. A little, 90 pound woman can fight off a 250 pound, big brute of a man with a gun. Even if the brute has a gun, she still has a better chance against him than she would if neither had guns.
It would be wonderful if all people were honest and loving. But since they aren't, guns are way better than no guns. The only people who want no guns, are the people who want to control the world for their own benefit, and the idiots who believe their propaganda.
Problem with the idea of gun control in the USA is that it's too late...
Of course gun control is a rather good thing I think. It brings more security in a society. But for that you need to be in a society where guns aren't already spread absolutely EVRYWHERE else control can't be applied!
Of course gun control is a rather good thing I think. It brings more security in a society. But for that you need to be in a society where guns aren't already spread absolutely EVRYWHERE else control can't be applied!
I just don't exactly see other reasons explaining such a difference, and especially not the "USA is more diversified" bullshit of Tecshare which is not only insulting for the whole EU but also based on absolutely nothing as far as I can see.
I already explained why my statement was correct.
He who claims proves, and your proof is not very compelling, especially considering how large and diverse the US is compared to these other countries.
Unfortunately all of Europe is not a country. Europe is a collection of countries all with different policies, laws, cultures, ethnic groups, population densities, taxes, and national budgets. Europe is subdivided into many smaller nations. The USA is ONE SINGLE NATION composed of more than 300 million people, all of them from different places all over the globe.
In France there are native French who all share a common culture. In Spain there are native Spanish that all share a common culture. In Sweden there are Swedish who all share a common culture. This provides for more cooperation and understanding within local communities that the USA does not share because it consists of one single, very large nation upon which it is illogical to impose laws which might otherwise be effective for your otherwise tiny and more culturally homogeneous nations. Of course this whole side topic itself is a strawman argument, but this time I actually did make this claim, so I felt I should defend it regardless of your fallacious diversionary tactics.
EU has twice the population of USA, 28 times the legislation complexity, numerous different cultures and etcnics groups, dense history, more or less 25 different languages, and you just come here and caim that it's "not so much diversified, especially compared to the US".
Unfortunately all of Europe is not a country. Europe is a collection of countries all with different policies, laws, cultures, ethnic groups, population densities, taxes, and national budgets. Europe is subdivided into many smaller nations. The USA is ONE SINGLE NATION composed of more than 300 million people, all of them from different places all over the globe.
In France there are native French who all share a common culture. In Spain there are native Spanish that all share a common culture. In Sweden there are Swedish who all share a common culture. This provides for more cooperation and understanding within local communities that the USA does not share because it consists of one single, very large nation upon which it is illogical to impose laws which might otherwise be effective for your otherwise tiny and more culturally homogeneous nations. Of course this whole side topic itself is a strawman argument, but this time I actually did make this claim, so I felt I should defend it regardless of your fallacious diversionary tactics.
Sorry in the midst of your long, boring, most of the time stupidly precise posts (but also insulting don't worry) I feel like I missed this part which is rather interesting.
So maybe we could say exactly the same thing from the USA? It's as easy to go from Spain to France than to go from California to Texas.
The EU is totally free in terms of work and movement. it would be interesting to look in details the concentration of races/cultures in each countries and compare it to the one of the USA but it's a rather important amount of work which I don't think we're ready to provide.
Hence your statement is absolutely not proven. You're just making the assumption that each European nation is less diversified than the USA itself. If that's not a logical fallacy... You're just moving the problem from a greater scale to a lesser one that's all.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns?
Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life.
And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/
Thousands of children drown each year, why is it people such as yourself are not rallying to ban swimming pools? Would banning swimming pools not reduce the rate of accidental child deaths much more than banning guns? Why is this less of an issue to you? Perhaps your own bias against and ignorance of firearms?
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSafeSwimmingPool/
Again you're just stupidly stalking me.
Why wouldn't you, maybe, read my post again and the post it refers to.
I was answering someone saying he wants gun control to be put in place for convicted citizens and children. He literally says "children shouldn't be able to access them". To this I answer that it's sadly not possible to ensure such a thing, and that at the moment most children already can't access guns legally but still dozens of them die anyway every year.
Your answer is totally out of the subjects. i never said that gun control should be put in place because 60 children die every year. I simply says that you can't prevent that AND keep gun freedom. After it's your concern to see if 60 children lifes is worth gun freedom.
Note how there are NEVER any reports of any child firing a gun WITHOUT an "accidental" fatality, NEVER just an injury, NEVER zero bloodshed at all, even. This is because children find the few guns with feather trigger pulls that fire magic bullets that instantly kill with a single shot when pointed in a safe direction.
Of course there are not... How would you want the feds to report that?
If there is no accident and everything is fine, who is gonna warn the police? This is a stupid remark!
I mean you could apply that to everyone and everything...
"why doesn't any report about homicides talk about all the times when two people argue without shooting each other?"
Well just because I'm not going to report the police "hey! Nothing happen, we argued a lot but didn't shoot!"
That's random dude.
All discharges of a gun held by a child could be reported regardless of the bullet's trajectory, but propagandists want us to believe that it is not possible for children to handle a gun unattended without killing themselves or others "accidentally", so they can "justify" their laws that criminalize children effectively defending themselves in the absence of adults (and the adults for allowing their children to effectively defend themselves alone), plus adults from teaching gun safety & self-defense marksmanship, even if the children they teach never have unsupervised access to guns at any time.
I think if you teach your kids about guns they will be much less likely to want to mess with them when they shouldn't. They are probably more attracted to guns if they just think they are taboo and mysterious.
If you take your kid out and teach them how to shoot and operate the gun they will no longer be as curious because they already know what they are about..
You can tell a kid all you want that guns are dangerous and not to be payed with but they don't really know. Take them out shooting and let them hear and see the BANG and the kick and then they KNOW they are dangerous and to be respected first hand.
Have them shoot a .22 while your at it. I am often surprised by how well and fast a kid can can learn to shoot.
If you take your kid out and teach them how to shoot and operate the gun they will no longer be as curious because they already know what they are about..
You can tell a kid all you want that guns are dangerous and not to be payed with but they don't really know. Take them out shooting and let them hear and see the BANG and the kick and then they KNOW they are dangerous and to be respected first hand.
Have them shoot a .22 while your at it. I am often surprised by how well and fast a kid can can learn to shoot.
I just don't exactly see other reasons explaining such a difference, and especially not the "USA is more diversified" bullshit of Tecshare which is not only insulting for the whole EU but also based on absolutely nothing as far as I can see.
I already explained why my statement was correct.
He who claims proves, and your proof is not very compelling, especially considering how large and diverse the US is compared to these other countries.
Unfortunately all of Europe is not a country. Europe is a collection of countries all with different policies, laws, cultures, ethnic groups, population densities, taxes, and national budgets. Europe is subdivided into many smaller nations. The USA is ONE SINGLE NATION composed of more than 300 million people, all of them from different places all over the globe.
In France there are native French who all share a common culture. In Spain there are native Spanish that all share a common culture. In Sweden there are Swedish who all share a common culture. This provides for more cooperation and understanding within local communities that the USA does not share because it consists of one single, very large nation upon which it is illogical to impose laws which might otherwise be effective for your otherwise tiny and more culturally homogeneous nations. Of course this whole side topic itself is a strawman argument, but this time I actually did make this claim, so I felt I should defend it regardless of your fallacious diversionary tactics.
EU has twice the population of USA, 28 times the legislation complexity, numerous different cultures and etcnics groups, dense history, more or less 25 different languages, and you just come here and caim that it's "not so much diversified, especially compared to the US".
Unfortunately all of Europe is not a country. Europe is a collection of countries all with different policies, laws, cultures, ethnic groups, population densities, taxes, and national budgets. Europe is subdivided into many smaller nations. The USA is ONE SINGLE NATION composed of more than 300 million people, all of them from different places all over the globe.
In France there are native French who all share a common culture. In Spain there are native Spanish that all share a common culture. In Sweden there are Swedish who all share a common culture. This provides for more cooperation and understanding within local communities that the USA does not share because it consists of one single, very large nation upon which it is illogical to impose laws which might otherwise be effective for your otherwise tiny and more culturally homogeneous nations. Of course this whole side topic itself is a strawman argument, but this time I actually did make this claim, so I felt I should defend it regardless of your fallacious diversionary tactics.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns?
Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life.
And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/
I don't understand how a child can kill himself or hurt anyone with a gun.
I mean, I'm not a gun specialist but most firearm aren't exactly easy to use! You need some strength in the fingers to pull the trigger!
I'm not sure I would have been able to do it when I was a child xD
Pro gun rights people should not use this argument because it is fairly invalid. Children finding guns and mis-using guns is a problem which can and does occur, and they are simple enough to use that a child can do it. Especially if stored in a manner that is conducive to protecting one's family from home invasion crime and such.
That said, it can be expected that anti-gun propagandists will horribly distort this issue since it involves children. There are many many things in the environment which have the potential to cause harm to children or facilitate them harming themselves. In fact, if the goal is to protect kids from bodily harm, it is probably more 'irresponsible' to take one's kids on a hike or even to a shopping center (depending on the driving route) than it is to have a firearm in the household for personal protection. Or maybe even to allow them to attend public school! That would be my guess.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns?
Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life.
And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/
Thousands of children drown each year, why is it people such as yourself are not rallying to ban swimming pools? Would banning swimming pools not reduce the rate of accidental child deaths much more than banning guns? Why is this less of an issue to you? Perhaps your own bias against and ignorance of firearms?
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSafeSwimmingPool/
Note how there are NEVER any reports of any child firing a gun WITHOUT an "accidental" fatality, NEVER just an injury, NEVER zero bloodshed at all, even. This is because children find the few guns with feather trigger pulls that fire magic bullets that instantly kill with a single shot when pointed in a safe direction.
Of course there are not... How would you want the feds to report that?
If there is no accident and everything is fine, who is gonna warn the police? This is a stupid remark!
I mean you could apply that to everyone and everything...
"why doesn't any report about homicides talk about all the times when two people argue without shooting each other?"
Well just because I'm not going to report the police "hey! Nothing happen, we argued a lot but didn't shoot!"
That's random dude.
These children are finding the few guns with feather trigger pulls that fire magic bullets that instantly kill with a single shot when pointed in a safe direction.
The irony
Still, it's bit strange. And it is indeed horrible to think that dozens of children kill themselves every year... Because it means that hundreds injure themselves too!
Note how there are NEVER any reports of any child firing a gun WITHOUT an "accidental" fatality, NEVER just an injury, NEVER zero bloodshed at all, even. This is because children find the few guns with feather trigger pulls that fire magic bullets that instantly kill with a single shot when pointed in a safe direction.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns?
Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life.
And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/
I don't understand how a child can kill himself or hurt anyone with a gun.
I mean, I'm not a gun specialist but most firearm aren't exactly easy to use! You need some strength in the fingers to pull the trigger!
I'm not sure I would have been able to do it when I was a child xD
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
And how do you ensure that children have no access to guns?
Sadly enough, around 60 children die each year just because they found a gun somewhere. I know it seems not a lot, and it sure isn't compared to the millions of inhabitants. But what does a life is worth? Especially a child life.
And 60 is the federal estimation, most other institutes have MUCH HIGHER data. But even the federal one is too much I think
http://everytownresearch.org/reports/innocents_lost/
Why do you think so many mass shootings occur at a school, or other "gun free zone"?
The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
No, that's probably not the reason.The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
They choose the schools because they hate the people there.
So the heavily-armed-teacher, staff, IDF & police schools in Israel are being shot up by Daesh at the same rate or worse than the "gun-free teacher, staff, and AWOL police officer zones" in the US?
It's also why you can't have just a part of a country which is gun free. You need the whole country to be gun free or without gun control, cause if you set gun free zones, criminals and citizens will easily get guns by just going out and back of the zone.
But in all this posting, you need to remember one major thing. The gun control that we are generally talking about in this thread is not really gun control. Rather, it is people control - people controlling other people.
Well we're in a society. It's all about human interactions of course. You can't control anything else but human actions, what else could you do?
It's a bit a sneaky reasoning, you can apply this definition to EVERY decision taken by any kind of society. Not that it's wrong, but that is ALWAYS true, so not very interesting.
If you like being controlled by other people, you will fit into the gun control scenario very well.
If you like controlling other people, you will fit into the gun control scenario very well.
It's people who don't want the control either way, but would rather control themselves in freedom, who are resisting you controllers.
Do you actually read what I write?
Your answer has absolutely no link to mine. I was saying that it's a bit stupid to talk about people control because it's ALWAYS the case. The main point of human society IS to control humans.
If you don't even take the time to read and understand others word, don't bother replying neither.
Why do you think so many mass shootings occur at a school, or other "gun free zone"?
The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
No, that's probably not the reason.The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
They choose the schools because they hate the people there.
So the heavily-armed-teacher, staff, IDF & police schools in Israel are being shot up by Daesh at the same rate or worse than the "gun-free teacher, staff, and AWOL police officer zones" in the US?
It's also why you can't have just a part of a country which is gun free. You need the whole country to be gun free or without gun control, cause if you set gun free zones, criminals and citizens will easily get guns by just going out and back of the zone.
But in all this posting, you need to remember one major thing. The gun control that we are generally talking about in this thread is not really gun control. Rather, it is people control - people controlling other people.
Well we're in a society. It's all about human interactions of course. You can't control anything else but human actions, what else could you do?
It's a bit a sneaky reasoning, you can apply this definition to EVERY decision taken by any kind of society. Not that it's wrong, but that is ALWAYS true, so not very interesting.
If you like being controlled by other people, you will fit into the gun control scenario very well.
If you like controlling other people, you will fit into the gun control scenario very well.
It's people who don't want the control either way, but would rather control themselves in freedom, who are resisting you controllers.
You know I see you in lots of threads and talking a lot, but I always get the impression that when you answer you don't really read what the other users write. Cause you're answers are always vague and not exactly on the subject.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
IIRC there is a Texas law that a convicted felon should be allowed to keep firearms in his own home for personal protection. In the 19th century it was considered unjust that having served his time, he should be freed only to be defenseless when marauding bands of Indians came around.
Just thought that might be of interest. That law is still on the books, and conflicts with US Federal law. One of those things the powers that be don't want tested in court.
I'm for gun control in the means that convicted criminals and children should not have access to it. Besides that people have the right to protect themselves and should be able to own guns.
Why do you think so many mass shootings occur at a school, or other "gun free zone"?
The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
No, that's probably not the reason.The answer is that the crazy person knows it will be less likely that anyone will shoot back...
They choose the schools because they hate the people there.
A few of them might be so fearless that they would choose schools anyway. But if the schools were not gun free, both the terrorists that attack the schools, along with the potential terrorists who are students at the schools, would be dead in short order.
Jump to: