Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
Lazarus
Full House


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Ya Mama

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:45 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Guns are to kill animals/people machine guns being specifically designed to kill humans on a mass scale. Not sure the last time someone got rushed by ten grizzlies and felt the need for a RPG and M60 but come on its simple shit. So if you want to kill yeah guns are great.

Should be regulated to rifles and shotguns for hunting and licence owners should be mentally tested on a set basis. This wont be foolproof but as I explained to someone today in the UK when an average guy goes crazy he normally stabs a few people and is taken down by the police. He cant kit up like a one man rambo he may get weapons but is going to bring attenton to himself and at least would be breaking the law.

I respect peoples rights to hunt and defend their own homes. But no arguement i have seen in anyway excuses the type and amount and easy access to weaponary in the US.

Yes im scared of guns im also scared of lions too its common sense really. People have pointed guns at me yeah i was scared if i wasnt then I would be worried that i either didnt care about my own life or had become so stupid that i didnt recognize a direct threat to my life.
_________________
Tigers Blood
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:57 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Quote:
Jon MW wrote:
This is just repeating the idea that all gun crime is pre-meditated murder.

It would seem obvious that not all of the thousands of people killed by guns each year in the US were killed on purpose, just as it seems likely that a fair proportion of the tens of thousands of people with gun injuries every year were injured by accident rather than design.


The reason I'm focusing on "evil people are going to do evil" is because this is what anti gun people use as an excuse for outlawing guns. Yes accidents happen, as long as there are humanbeings on this planet there will be accidents, but even anti gun groups understand we can't ban guns based on accidental deaths. Honestly if we baned everything because of an accidental death, well you get the picture, and lets be honest, if the shooting in Aurora didn't happen, we wouldn't be talking about this.

Jon MW wrote:
The alternative view is that the higher homicide rate in areas with higher gun ownership is a coincidence - if that was the case then do you think Leus's source is wrong and that Americans are just inherently more murderous by nature?


I have no idea where this source got it's info. I've actually heard the opposite but cant give any numbers or links to proove it. I will look at that.


Jackdaw wrote:
People are going to do evil things with or without guns, that is true, but if that boy hadn't had an assault rifle and other guns the scale of the tragedy would have been much smaller.


This is complete speculation, it could've been bigger, we could could go on and on about what he could've done without guns, but there's no point.

Jackdaw wrote:
When something tragic happens, people do want to find a way to prevent it happening again, that is natural and sensible. Will gun control prevent tragedies from happening again? I doubt it, but if we can reduce the damage these people do is that not worthwhile? I don't trust people to own guns and that's the reason I don't want them to have them, and I will feel better if the government takes your guns.


Thank you for your honesty, and I understand this, but we can't have the government take everything away because we don't like them. I don't like pitbulls, I don't care who you are, if you have a pitbull I will go the other way, but I would never say people should not be aloud to own one.

Indestructible wrote:
I don't think i will convince you tbh, but my problem is with your line and others like this is that you are not suggesting anything else. What is your plan, do nothing?


This is a really good comment and I do think gun and anti gun alike should sit down and discuss what we can do. Honestly first I think we need to learn more about mental illness, warning signs, and have a better awarness of getting these people help before they commit these crimes. Next, (you wont like this) I believe allowing law abiding citizens to carry thier guns would save lives, and I can post link after link of this in action.

Lazarus wrote:
I respect peoples rights to hunt and defend their own homes. But no arguement i have seen in anyway excuses the type and amount and easy access to weaponary in the US.


This goes back to our 2nd amendment which gives us the right to deffend my self even from our own government. Like I said, I have several and just enjoy shooting them.
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:02 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Ron Paul is one of the only politicians who I have great faith in and admire for his honesty. He is a truth teller on issues such as our economy, foreign policy, and war on drugs.

His comments are interesting.

Ron Paul:

The senseless and horrific killings last week at a movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted. Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed. As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the resolve to create a society that better values life.



We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.



Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.



Internal self governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.



Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government do something to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.



Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?



Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.


Source: http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-g...Ron+Paul&mk=1
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:05 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I'm not scared of lions.
StGilmore
Straight Flush


Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 3061
Location: nil fhios agam

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:28 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I thought I wouldn't re-enter this. (Thank you Barny for your response - it meant more than I can say.)

I've spent the last four hours or so reading and trying to form a response. (I'm quoting the time only because I've just noticed how late it is and when I started. This is hard!)


The (most recent) guy bought 4 guns of varying types and an enormous amount of ammo in a few weeks.

Not one red flag goes up anywhere. ...?

My understanding is if I checked out 4 library books any where in the U.S, right now that had a common theme even hinting at terrorism I'd be on a threat prority list.

If I made four attempts at the wrong password to access most secure internet sites I'd be shut out and tagged as a financial threat.

Surely there could be some kind of monitoring on weapons that can kill loads of people in seconds?

As others have mentioned (Alex B and Lazarus I think at min) mistrust of government is a huge part of this and fair enough. I get that and agree that this is a major issue. But I can't think of a real alternative to governmental control at least in terms of monitoring and sharing information because who else has the resources and the authority?

It would be wonderful if there were an altruistic set of individuals with no personal agenda except the good of all creatures (GOAC)... (sound it out you fellow cynics, reluctant like me or otherwise) who would fill the void and fund an international monitoring system for Weapon Alert Real-time Tracking System (WARTS).

(Those acronyms are me voicing my despair over this issue - I'd give almost anything to see such a thing exist.)

In the meantime, I don't see how any government doesn't track weapons purchasing. ANY government.

I can't take a metal toothpick on a plane but someone can buy 4 guns in a few weeks and nobody notices?

I can speed on a roadway/motorway/freeway and get spotted by a camera and have a ticket/citation/summons in my postbox/mailbox within days....

I can try to send $400 by Western Union to my son who is visiting/holidaying in Arizona only to be told that payments anywhere near the Mexico border have been prohibited because of a possible realtion to drug trafficking?

The list of things that are watched/recorded/responded to is too long. The question is: why aren't guns on the top of the list?




Oh. I've just finally copped it. Really, just as I was writing this. (I came late to class.)

Seems like most everything is really fiscally based. So.

I think there needs to be a law suit by all the families affected by this tragedy against the U.S. government for failing to protect them.

I actually have a gag reflex when it comes to most litigation - most of it is indeed greed based.

But when history shows that grief and outrage fall on deaf ears, money may be the only talk that's heard.

By the way, I'm not saying people can't own guns. I'm not saying people can't own planes. But if you own a plane, you have to file a flight plan with the pertinent authorities before heading off. Somehow you don't have to file a shooting plan.


On a related note - don't tell me how just about anything can be turned into a weapon to kill people. I know that mayonaise in the potato salad at a church pot-luck can kill hundreds if left out in the heat for too long.

Guns were CREATED to kill.


last edit: I've just recalled the moment I witnessed former president Ronald Reagan shot (as an emergency hi-jack of the TV show I was watching). I can't wrap my head around all the conflicting political allegiances, but I tend to think that if gun control laws weren't made the strongest then... the Brady Bill echoes through my mind and all the furore surrounding it...and can't see what was achieved that helps now. So really, really the only hope is finding something more meaningful to the powers that be than sorrow, protest and logic. Must be money, mustn't it?
_________________
"I find it's best to start the day with no composure and then you've got nothing to lose." B. Boatman

http://midlifepoker.blogspot.com/
http://outthescammers.blogspot.com/
StGilmore
Straight Flush


Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 3061
Location: nil fhios agam

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:50 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Oh dear, it took me so long to write and edit my post.

PokerSensation - I appreciate your Ron Paul post and what he has to say.

Being as goverment in the U.S. and most other places DO try to mandate morality etc. and absolutely DO exert control through laws etc when government wishes to do so. What I wish is that Ron Paul give his advice on what positive action to take in the current situation rather than only remind people of his ideology at this time.
_________________
"I find it's best to start the day with no composure and then you've got nothing to lose." B. Boatman

http://midlifepoker.blogspot.com/
http://outthescammers.blogspot.com/
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:18 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
Quote:
Jon MW wrote:
This is just repeating the idea that all gun crime is pre-meditated murder.

It would seem obvious that not all of the thousands of people killed by guns each year in the US were killed on purpose, just as it seems likely that a fair proportion of the tens of thousands of people with gun injuries every year were injured by accident rather than design.


The reason I'm focusing on "evil people are going to do evil" is because this is what anti gun people use as an excuse for outlawing guns. Yes accidents happen, as long as there are humanbeings on this planet there will be accidents, but even anti gun groups understand we can't ban guns based on accidental deaths. Honestly if we baned everything because of an accidental death, well you get the picture, and lets be honest, if the shooting in Aurora didn't happen, we wouldn't be talking about this.
...


Now you're conceding that gun crime can be either pre-meditated murder, or an accident.

But there is an in between. The thousands of deaths where somebody intended to do wrong. Like the massacres - but also like the armed robberies where a knife would have injured someone but because guns are so easy to get hold of people get shot and killed instead. Similarly with car-jackings, house breakings and domestic violence. There's plenty of bad people doing bad things - elsewhere in the world this results in people getting injured; the US easy access to guns means that instead they get killed.

There tends to be about 10,000 people killed by guns in the US every year - so obviously the one off massacre's are a tiny proportion of the problem.

The US has about 5 times the population of the UK, but has about 200 times the number of gun deaths every year.

US citizens already can carry guns - so if allowing them access to weaponry can actually save lives (as you claim) - do you honestly think that this rate of deaths would be even higher if access to guns were more restricted? And like has been mentioned before - if this very high ratio of killings isn't down to guns to being so easily available - what is it down to?
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
evelyn
Quads


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2123

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:50 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
darrensprengers wrote:
we need to look at the usa as a whole to find out what drives and enables them to willfully kill each other. the gun in this case may be the same as the spoon. the spoon enable the weak to eat more easily than they could with their hands. the gun enables anybody to kill even those much stronger than them. if you have a society that, for whatever sociological reasons, is at war with itself the gun merely facilitates the underlying problems.

Although these underlying problems should be discovered and worked upon you do have to question why the right to bear arms includes assault rifles, grenades and other high velocity weapons.


Why do Americans kill each other so often ? Because it's a very driven society with people living close to the edge. Having said that there will always be an odd nutter emerging in every country. Why isn't there gun control in the US ? The top and the bottom of it is that the majority of Americans don't want gun control. If they did then the politicians would be queuing up to give it to them. The latest massacre has led to a surge in the sale of guns as more people have decided that they need to defend themselves. It is a pity because gun control works reasonably well in the UK. The penalties for possessing a gun are so severe that the criminals are too scared to keep them.
Lazarus
Full House


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Ya Mama

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
When i was young i idolised america and thought the human race was advancing mentally.

Then i grew up.

Ive had to censor myself in this thread but the logic or lack off that more guns means safety is just amazingly stupid. If i know you have a pistol maybe i get a bigger gun and so on and so forth.

Violence breeds violence. Again im not here with revolutionary ideas just simple logic.

If everyone in the threatre had a gun theres a chance he may have been shot quickly but with a unique scenario(i have not read up fully) people may have thought it was some kind of pre show suprise until they saw people dieing. He has suprise he has extra weaponary and he has ruthless intent and planning. Im sure some people their where carrying weapons yet the culprit lived.

Also people firing at the cuplrit could have missed and hit someone else and that person with a gun then decides that said person was shoting at them purposely and returns fire. (theirs a guy in the front row with a gun dressed as batman maybe he is in this sick gang maybe the guy with green hair in row three with the pistol to defend himself is pointing it in your vague direction) Now you have a dead culprit and highly confused citizens exchanging fire with anything thats moves due to sheer terror. Thier not soldiers trained to stay calm under fire thier average people taking a you or me stance which is undertandable. Hopefully you get the concept.
_________________
Tigers Blood
Lazarus
Full House


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 868
Location: Ya Mama

PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:15 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Seb wrote:
I'm not scared of lions.


Maybe you could enter their den and convert them to christianity,
_________________
Tigers Blood
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:39 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
StGilmore wrote:
I think there needs to be a law suit by all the families affected by this tragedy against the U.S. government for failing to protect them.


I really hope this is a joke. Do you really expect the government to protect you from everything all the time? The only person I rely on for the protection of my family and myself, is me! Why? Because I'm the only one I trust!

The thought of relying on the government to protect me makes me cringe.

Jon MW wrote:
Now you're conceding that gun crime can be either pre-meditated murder, or an accident.


First no where in any of my post have I said anything about accidents being a crime. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. People die everyday from accidents of all types, what does that have to do with gun control?

Jon MW wrote:
There tends to be about 10,000 people killed by guns in the US every year - so obviously the one off massacre's are a tiny proportion of the problem.


Where did you get this number? The FBI stats say in 2010 there was 8775 murders (not just premeditated) commited by a firearm.

Jon MW wrote:
US citizens already can carry guns


This is very inaccurate. It is a state by state issue. In fact go to www.guardian.co.uk and you'll find a datablog on gun stats in the US. In fact you'll find that the states with the most agressive gun control has the most murders comitted with guns. The states that allow citizens to carry have the least.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:34 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
...

Jon MW wrote:
There tends to be about 10,000 people killed by guns in the US every year - so obviously the one off massacre's are a tiny proportion of the problem.


Where did you get this number? The FBI stats say in 2010 there was 8775 murders (not just premeditated) commited by a firearm.

...


Yes in 2010 there were because of a dip in the last 3 years - this may be permanent but the trend (until proven otherwise) is for around 10,000 (2005,2006 and 2007 for example were all over 10,000 before this dip).

But even if this dip is the start of a trend - you're still ignoring the point that it's not just a higher proportion than countries with stricter gun control - it's massively higher.

Like with many other arguments you seem to be either wilfully missing the relevant and pertinent information (e.g. the massively higher rate of gun crime) and focussing on irrelevant nit-picking (e.g. it might eventually come down to 160 times the rate rather than the 200 times I quoted), or, alternatively you just lack the ability to grasp the difference between the two.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:42 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
NB: the correlation between stricter gun laws and higher deaths is largely irrelevant.

a. the 'strict' gun laws aren't that strict - they're the states which have things like a cooling off period, a restriction on the amount of quantity of ammo you can buy at once and checks on criminal and mental instability backgrounds.

b. the statistical difference isn't that great

c. people can largely bypass these state laws by going into neighbouring states or buying online

That's why a country by country comparison shows a truer picture.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
evelyn
Quads


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2123

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:58 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
It's a social conditioning issue. If you are made to feel unsafe because you don't have a gun then society is teaching you to be far too fearful. If guns were legal in the UK and somebody gave me one I would throw it away.

JMW's point about accessibility should be self-evident to poker players as the first position is called "under the gun".
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:27 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Jon MW wrote:
NB: the correlation between stricter gun laws and higher deaths is largely irrelevant.

a. the 'strict' gun laws aren't that strict - they're the states which have things like a cooling off period, a restriction on the amount of quantity of ammo you can buy at once and checks on criminal and mental instability backgrounds.

b. the statistical difference isn't that great

c. people can largely bypass these state laws by going into neighbouring states or buying online

That's why a country by country comparison shows a truer picture.


You are way off here.

1. I can not go out of state and buy guns. I can only legally buy firearms in my own state. If I buy online they have to be shipped to a FFL (Federal Firearms Dealer) in my state where I have to fillout the same paperwork, background check, etc.

2. The correlation between stricter gun laws and higher deaths is very relevant. It prooves that stricter gun laws doesn't mean lower gun crime rate.

3. Country by country comparison is pointless and I'll proove why. If country by country comparison shows a truer picture then how come the UK has a much higher crimerate than Switzerland which issues a fully automatic rifle to every male between the ages 20-30? Fact is each country has a vast different culture. The US has more races, more diverse cultures than any other country in the world. Also I believe the biggest problem in the US reguarding crime is drugs.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Non-Poker General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum