Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
121 - 136 of 136 Posts

·
Grand Lord Munchkin
Joined
·
7,044 Posts
"Rockclimbing, parachuting" - you have a death wish and must be put on a suicide watch and you are no longer allowed to participate in those activities.

"Warhammer" - your hobby makes you extremely aggressive due to the imaginable universe where "there is only war" and potentially dangerous to other people. As such, you should only be allowed to play with barbie dolls instead, providing you pass a criminal, financial, psychological background checks upon which you may be issued a "doll license". The only dolls you will be allowed to posses should not be more or less in size as predetermined by the government authorities. You can not have your dolls dressed up in army camo to make them "assault dolls" and the only place you will be allowed to play with your dolls are in the licensed by the government clubs with a yearly membership of around $500 or in a complete wilderness.

"How do ya like them apples?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: scscofield

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,216 Posts
gen.ahab I would rep ya but I have to spread the love apparently as you are recent in recieving loving from me.:wink:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
My right to die if I wish. It doesn't risk harming anyone else. And honestly, if the government cared that much about me commiting suicide they shouldn't have sent me to Ghanners.

Meanwhile, Guns on the other hand when improperly handled risk life of others and are little more than a toy. Compared to a car which while still dangerous is utilitarian.

Your arguments still hold no water.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
I don't know. My guns never were able to crawl out of the safe on their own and kill anyone, so here goes your "guns kill people" argument.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,195 Posts
Ok, I'm done, word of advice Snokvor, there is more to this website than Off Topic. As of right now your coming off more as a troll than anything else. This is a plastic army man website, consider that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
As opposed to that 9 year old killing someone?

It is a man pulling the trigger. Yes, yes, we get that. Glad you've got inbred mind around that.

Because that gun the 9 year old was using was in her safe. Because that Delta operator I met a few years ago shot his kid with an ND shortly after returning. Accidents happen. A bit like kids burn themselves on hot stoves. What do you do? You prevent that - stop the kid going into the kitchen, or remove access to that weapon.

Both of those were with legal firearms. That's 1 instructor who would be alive, and one kid who has a father and isn't bound into a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

The Majority of mass shootings were using legally owned weapons. There's an actual correlation between those who own guns and being more likely to commit other offences. The inability of the country to enforce their laws is more problematic, but should be done about.

The majority of people purchase weapons for recreation. Might as well say I'm going to purchase Heroin for recreation.

Criminals not subject to background checks - a bit like people ignore speed limits right?

Protecting yourself? You're virtually incapable of defending yourself with a gun if one is drawn on you before you have a chance. You're not going to draw, unsafe, raise, sight and fire before you've got a round entering your face.

Some handly links;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/nra-mass-shootings-myth
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

I'm not saying that removing gun ownership is a panacea and magic silver bullet which will cure America and turn it into some world superpower once again, but I'm saying that despite you, and quite a few others, removing the vehicle/delivery of that danger at the expense of you not having a toy (and that meaning that you have a receipt to prove ownership, or a government recognised valuation of its worth, and that you should be recompensed for its loss during an amnesty) is worth that.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
There's an actual correlation between those who own guns and being more likely to commit other offences.
Oh really? Than how come there are more deaths caused by drunk drivers than firearms related deaths?

The majority of people purchase weapons for recreation. Might as well say I'm going to purchase Heroin for recreation.
Might as well say you are going to jump off an airplane for recreation.

Criminals not subject to background checks - a bit like people ignore speed limits right?
But it's a huge deterrent. There is a big difference between being a subject of a 6 months investigation and just being able to walk into Walmart with your drivers license as a proof that you are 18+ and just buy any gun off the shelf. Also that's the reason why I think that magazine capacity limit is moronic: criminals don't fallow the rules and laws.

Protecting yourself? You're virtually incapable of defending yourself with a gun if one is drawn on you before you have a chance. You're not going to draw, unsafe, raise, sight and fire before you've got a round entering your face.
And how do you know I am not able? Have seen me? Have seen me shoot the targets? Do you know about my military experience? Concealed carry is not allowed in Canada but if I had a chance even if I had to take a special course for threat escalation control I would not hesitate to do it.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
It is a man pulling the trigger. Yes, yes, we get that. Glad you've got inbred mind around that.
Already addressed that. And your points don't even begin to address mine.

A lot of crime is committed spur of the moment - not got a figure for that, read it in a book on psychology. The ease of access of weaponry - and as you failed address that point - that the lethal option, i.e the gun, means it is often used, and is often a licensed weapon.

The US is an outlier in many statistics - as shown in one of the links you didn't address.

In regards to "seeing you shoot the targets" or "your military experience", I seriously doubt pretty much anyones claim that they can draw, safe, chamber, raise, sight and fire to defend against someone who already has their handgun against their face.

In regards to further gun control - very little is caused by assault weapons - which are banned. Larger than .50 cal is banned. Very little crime with those, and they're banned - in regards to assault rifles, less crimes committed with them due to the difficulty in getting hold of them and increasing policing of illegal gun trafficking.

There are roughly 100 more legally registered firearms than cars per 1000 - this can cause outliers - similar to how San Marino has more cars than people, depending on the state of the environment that owner is within. For example, a farmer might need only a single vehicle, but a few rifles to protect his livestock.

To become a Driver in the UK, one needs to apply for a Provisional licence, which includes an initial background check. They then need to take a theoretical and a practical test, scoring a particular amount on both. This includes the rules of road use and safety, under both of which, the drunk driver is made note of. Upon completing and passing the test, you can now apply for a full license, which includes another background check (and have the option to take further tests, but this is more to do with proving you're a better driver for a cheaper insurance these days). You are taxed on the road use, and you are required to be insured to drive a car - and have proof of all of the above when you purchase a car from a store dealer. Certain secondhand sales can become a bit dodgier, but even second hand dealers are under financial and lawful obligation to fulfil similar checks on cars sold.

While driving, you have safety measures, such as limited speed (on roads, as well as in-built limiters on certain cars), safety belts, safety features in the cars themselves such as rumblers/noise warnings/bitchin' betties to wake you up should you drift out of lane, police checkpoints to stop and check DUI's, and have the right to stop any car they believe is acting erratically (caught on camera to prevent miscarriages of justice) who they can then legally request a a breathalyzer analysis which can check for presence of alcohol, which if positive means a trip to the station and a further more detailed scan. Result includes penalties, fines, temporary bans, awareness courses, and eventual loss of license, which accrues after a number of points have been added from a number of sources which includes speeding and other driving offenses or road misuse. All of these actions have reduced road fatalities since their inclusion. Hell, some cars, and especially company cars are coming with Breathalyzer locks. There are ways around this, such as asking someone else to blow into the sample (unless of course it's DNA keyed), but relying somewhat on most peoples good sense of not helping a drunk person drive, or hotwiring - but that's not only illegal, but unsafe and a skill very few people are aware of (and no, it takes more than jamming a screwdriver into the ignition key, I've tried it) - especially so these days with electronic start ups on modern cars.

If there was a cause for some form of instant transportation or teleport device or whatever, I don't think it would be too long until cars in general just became banned, as not only are they unsafe, but their very reason they're not banned is because they're utilitarian, and that ability is now superceded by the instantaneous teleport. Cars are utilitarian. Guns are made for one purpose - killing things.

"Protect yourself" is an idea that was drummed up by those who would seek to make profit from the sales of such - similar to how the government bans research into biodegradeable/safe/green/reuseable energy on the strength of money it recieves from oil magnates. You wouldn't believe the arguments people are getting into over in the UK about the proposal for the creation of Europes largest nuclear power station - they're citing Chernobyl and Fukushima as viable reasons as why not to do it - most of the information having filtered down into the public domain by deliberate misinformation which all started somewhere - usually the government after being advised by their oil magnate paymasters. Replace "oil magnates" with "wealthy gun owning sponsors" and "the NRA", and "nuclear power" with "gun control" and you're somewhere near the mark.

Why should you be even able to buy one a rifle off the store, despite having similar testing

A quick google here shows me this;


Source; http://kellianderson.com/blog/2013/03/buying-a-gun-in-america/

Please, also check out the rest of that article. In addresses points such as comparisons between sales from a dealership and private sales etc. The article is more about gun control rather than removal of sale of guns - which is what I'd ultimately like to see, but increasing control and providing police the powers to do that job is a good start.

If you want to debate the X doesn't do Y, people do Y, is ignoring the transitivity of causation. The pro-gun lobby attempts to cloud the issue, here, but if in the case of the last few mass shootings, many of which were commited by lawful gun owners using legally bought firearms and magazines, the argument holds no weight. This, in the internet, is strawmanning.

If "transitivity of causation" is unknown to you, it simply means the "vehicle/method of death". Schrodingers cat - radiation didn't kill the cat, Schrodinger did. He put the cat in the box, knowing that radiation could kill it. It's a fair enough point. But if there was no radiation, the cat would be alive.

Most crimes are commited on the spur of the moment - there is very little planning that goes into many of them. They tend to grab what's near to them, and then do the action (which may be criminalised in law). The weapon is a tool of empowerment. A man caught cheating by his wife might have an argument in the kitchen. There is a gun in the safe. She knows this, and pulls the gun on him, killing him. If the gun wasn't there, there are other ways she could kill him. Knife from the kitchen, clubbing him with a heavy weight, strangling him with an electric cable, smothering him with a pillow, running him down with a car, etc, but all of those take a lot more effort to do, and give someone a greater chance of protection.

Having that gun stowed unassembled in two seperate safes both with a two number combination lock (that any particular person knows only one of the codes to) is going to slow down the time it takes to get such weapons which causes emotionally caused crime.

If she attacks him while he's defenceless (he's asleep, on the sofa, say), or goes through the above sequence to get that firearm, it's premeditated.

In regards to criminals using weaponry, that won't chance. It happens over in the UK. But it's about reducing numbers and access to such.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,976 Posts
Let me put it this way.

Not everybody who owns a gun will commit a crime with it. That much is plain and obvious. But we know via statistics that most gun crime comes from legally owned weapons. That's a lot of crime that wouldn't have happened if those guns weren't there because their law abiding owners could not obtain them in the first place. A gun is an easy reach in crimes of passion, there's little time for thought or cooling down. When someone is freshly pissed off for whatever reason, the gun is there, within their reach and ready to go in minutes.

Now, let's compare this principle for a moment to drugs. When someone takes drugs in a moment of ill judgement, the person most at risk is themselves. When someone handles a gun in a moment of ill judgement, the ones at risk are other people.

Which of the above makes more sense to have illegal? Understand that when people's lives are put in jeopardy by the premise of owning a gun, the law abiding majority do not matter. Saving lives is what matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
The Majority of mass shootings were using legally owned weapons. There's an actual correlation between those who own guns and being more likely to commit other offences. The inability of the country to enforce their laws is more problematic, but should be done about.
The majority of mass shooting were also planned months in advance. The guy in norway planned his long enough to write a long document detailing why he was doing what he was doing and such.

The columbine boys also planned their out months in advance.

Guns could have been banned everywhere in both cases and the only thing that probably would have happened is push the date of the attacks back.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,993 Posts
Alright, and as with many things a few have to ruin it for the many. Since some here can't be assed to remain civil and on topic, theres little point in this thread remaining open. Especially because those same people are more content arguing about their rights to bear guns or the stupid lengths others will go to retain that 'freedom.'


So thread closed, good job to those who lead to this. And for anyone who was involved, don't bother thinking your in the right because just like 40k theres no good side to be had here; merely degrees of asshole that will be dealt with in due course.
 
121 - 136 of 136 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top