Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You are very clearly set in your view towards firearms, the laws that allow people to own them, and the society in the US and it's relationship with guns and you seem quite content with that.
Just going to point out, he's probably taking after your own (non-existent) track record of malleable opinion on the matter.
Can't complain on others not wanting to change when you yourself never do either, really.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:11:52
Now you're just insulting me. I know how huge the US is, and how huge it's population is.
I facepalm at thee, together with this entire thread,
Or he's simply telling the truth based on this thread's sample size of your commentary.
I promise, no one here is facepalming at djones.
So, me giving, sure, unresearched (why do I even need to research my own opinions?) opinions gives him full rights to insult me? Huh.
And also, if I use unresearched 'facts', why does it even matter? I started arguing against US gun laws, now people are insulting me.
You're admitting to being ignorant. You are admitting to arguing from a stance of ignorance. And yet you are being insulted when people assume you are ignorant?
No, I'm being insulted when people assume they have the rigt to insult me. Sure, I could've done my research, but why the need for insulting me? I might've been ignorant, but that doesn't give anyone the rights to insult me.
And also, if I use unresearched 'facts', why does it even matter? I started arguing against US gun laws, now people are insulting me.
These aren't a thing though. You're arguing against fiction. Beyond the broad fact that gun ownership can't be made illegal in the base case, it's a state-by-state and city-by-city matter. It's not a matter of "US Laws".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:11:47
And as to why you should research your opinions: Because, quite frankly, un-researched opinions, particularly when they are presented as abrasively as yours, make you look foolish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:13:47
You should probably remove the "might" and move this to present tense if you want an accurate reflection of your participation on this thread. Just a friendly tip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: It's like 'Hey look, a guy didn't research his facts, let's call him stupid and force 'MURICA upon him!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:13:52
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
Yeah, that was an insult to me.
Also, I could squeeze in a pun about many US citizens being fat, but I don't fat to stoop so low.
"That Matthew kid is a total tool bag, it's obvious he's talking out of his ass, and has no clue what he's saying."
That would be an insult, which is not what I did. What I did was make a single statement saying you don't know what you are talking about, which you have agreed with in your own statements.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:16:50
You should probably remove the "might" and move this to present tense if you want an accurate reflection of your participation on this thread. Just a friendly tip.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matthew wrote: It's like 'Hey look, a guy didn't research his facts, let's call him stupid and force 'MURICA upon him!
Which was the point I was trying to make. He has no real understanding of how our country works. I don't think he even has a concept of how massive it is, compared to Sweden.
Yeah, that was an insult to me.
Also, I could squeeze in a pun about many US citizens being fat, but I don't fat to stoop so low.
Ha, massive.
That was not an insult. Judging by your previous posts in this thread, I'm pretty sure it was accurate. You clearly demonstrated you have little to no understanding of how the country works. This led him to believe that you might not realize how big it is compared to Sweden. If you spent more time trying to learn a bit, instead of making ridiculous opinion posts that you admit are completely devoid of any actual research on your part, you could have completely avoided other people coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:20:08
Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
"That Matthew kid is a total tool bag, it's obvious he's talking out of his ass, and has no clue what he's saying."
That would be an insult, which is not what I did. What I did was make a single statement saying you don't know what you are talking about, which you have agreed with in your own statements.
Yeah, you said I don't know how big the US is compared to Sweden. Only stupid people don't know that the US is huge.
You said something about me blowing off my steam, which in my eyes makes me look like an immature teenager. I may be a teenager, but I don't consider myself immature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
Thanks dude.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:23:49
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
After observing a fair few debates on this subject here, I am fairly sure I have developed an opinion of my own.
It is a complex problem, caused by history, status quo and national... 'mindset'.
I am of the belief that control would yield greater dividends in the long run than ultimately unnecessary civil rights that come at the price of stability (specifically, gun rights), but removing/limiting those rights at this point seems unfeasible because
1. There are too many illegal guns available, meaning that a gun ban would primarily remove guns from the... responsible users
2. The major focus and fierce protectiveness of civil rights means that any change would be met with great resistance
3. Large in-country differences in income, living standards, education et cetera makes for instability, instability that would be even more problematic with heavier gun restrictions. Though guns arguably work against the consequences, not the root of the issue
In conclusion? I will continue to argue that an ideal country, and the state a country should aspire to, is one where publically available firearms are unnecessary. However, the United States is not a case where cold turkey on guns would work, it would do more damage than help. In the long run more/entirely restricted guns will be best, but only once other problems that lie beneath have been acted upon.
Of course, keep guns for sports or whatever, that is fine by me. But in public situations - ie the store - it should not be required, and that people feel it's necessary currently speaks volumes about the effects of previously mentioned problems (like gaps in income).
Of course, it is also unlikely that this idea will yield much approval, since Americans tend to assign different values to civil rights than people of Sweden do. Case in point, Matthew.
Whew, that was a mouthful. I hope it did not come across as offensive, as it's not intended to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Its all good Matthew.
We all have bad days debating in the OT forum. Just that today is your bad day to debate and on a particular subject matter that your not strong in. Just say your having a bad day and that be it
This is quite possibly the best post in the thread.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/02 22:28:57
Matthew wrote: You said something about me blowing off my steam, which in my eyes makes me look like an immature teenager. I may be a teenager, but I don't consider myself immature.
I think you're taking this way more negatively than it was meant.
I'm pretty sure we've all been showing you a lot more respect than you showed us by coming into a thread to tell us what you think is wrong with our country, without actually knowing what you are talking about.
Hey everyone -- this thread has generated a lot of alerts and I see tempers are flaring. So here I am to remind you all that Rule Number One is Be Polite and you all agreed to abide by it when you made an account. Doing so is required for everyone who wants to keep posting on this site. Now below, I have quoted what a reasonable post on a controversial subject looks like. And I totally disagree with the points made by the way. Point is, that's how to do it without being rude, even from an opposing viewpoint on the merits. Thanks
Ashiraya wrote: After observing a fair few debates on this subject here, I am fairly sure I have developed an opinion of my own.
It is a complex problem, caused by history, status quo and national... 'mindset'.
I am of the belief that control would yield greater dividends in the long run than ultimately unnecessary civil rights that come at the price of stability (specifically, gun rights), but removing/limiting those rights at this point seems unfeasible because
1. There are too many illegal guns available, meaning that a gun ban would primarily remove guns from the... responsible users
2. The major focus and fierce protectiveness of civil rights means that any change would be met with great resistance
3. Large in-country differences in income, living standards, education et cetera makes for instability, instability that would be even more problematic with heavier gun restrictions. Though guns arguably work against the consequences, not the root of the issue
In conclusion? I will continue to argue that an ideal country, and the state a country should aspire to, is one where publically available firearms are unnecessary. However, the United States is not a case where cold turkey on guns would work, it would do more damage than help. In the long run more/entirely restricted guns will be best, but only once other problems that lie beneath have been acted upon.
Of course, keep guns for sports or whatever, that is fine by me. But in public situations - ie the store - it should not be required, and that people feel it's necessary currently speaks volumes about the effects of previously mentioned problems (like gaps in income).
Of course, it is also unlikely that this idea will yield much approval, since Americans tend to assign different values to civil rights than people of Sweden do. Case in point, Matthew.
Whew, that was a mouthful. I hope it did not come across as offensive, as it's not intended to be.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/02 23:01:48
If I may, I feel I might address the root of the problem from a European perspective, and I will do my best to keep it respectful.
I think the big disconnect for most of us, and the thing which leads to the most misunderstanding (which in turn leads to quite insulting language from some of the more insensitive and arrogant europeans, as we've seen) is the 'fun' aspect of gun ownership. It's disconcerting for us. We see guns as serious business, not to be trifled with. Yes, a gun is a tool, but it is a tool for killing. A handgun is a tool for killing people - that's it's only real purpose. So, in truth, we find it kind of creepy that someone would own a handgun for 'fun' - what on earth is fun about that? Over here, the sort of people that would find that fun would generally be considered as nutters and to be avoided. With that being said, I don't think particularly many Brits, especially if they lived in a rural area, would find particularly strange the concept of owning a rifle or a shotgun as they have legitimate hunting purposes (and believe it or not, we have that here), and consequently there are Brits who do just that. We have the legal right to own a gun if we want, most of us just choose not to exercise it. It's a cultural thing. Americans just like guns, and that's something we can't wrap our heads around. We see them as dangerous toys, essentially, owned on very thin nationalist or paranoiac pretexts. Americans see them as tools they have grown up around that, if handled properly, can be a fun and rewarding hobby, the exercise of which is enshrined in the constitution. I get that. More power to you. It's none of my business and doesn't really affect me anyway.
I am entitled to express my opinion on the subject, however.
I think the other main reason people cite for owning guns, self-defence, is largely due to the societal arms race caused by the widespread ownership of handguns. This is not to invalidate self-defence as a reason, (I would own a handgun if I lived in the US and was legally allowed to do so, no question) but it is nevertheless a thing. That is not going to be a societally endogeneous change. People own handguns because other people own handguns. I think they should be banned. I see no legitimate reason for a private citizen to own one. I do not consider 'fun' to be a legitimate reason. You can defend your home with a shotgun, you can hunt with a rifle, your right to bear arms would not be infringed, and this (admittedly, daft) woman would probably still be alive. You'd still get to be Americans, you'd just be safer. You could still overthrow the government if you needed to.
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/03 00:16:16
Insurgency at its finest. Shoot the Redcoat officer and run off into the woods
That and something like a huge pond between UK and the Colonies.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?
It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.
Spoiler:
Hey, I'm just glad that through all the link exchanging and international wiener measuring, someone acknowledged my off-color remark.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Jihadin wrote: Insurgency at its finest. Shoot the Redcoat officer and run off into the woods
That and something like a huge pond between UK and the Colonies.
And the bloody French, the fact that you still nearly lost and the fact that the Caribbean (which we kept) alone was worth more than the 13 Colonies, yaddayadda...
I was trying to appeal to your sense of patriotism to win you over and you had to go and ruin it, didn't you?
After all, your guys didn't defeat our Redcoats with Glock 19s, did they?
No, but if they had had Glock 19s it would have been a curbstomp.
On the subject of the Revolutionary War and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Back then, there was no concept of civilian vs military weapons. Private citizens often owned full on warships, the most powerful weapons at the time. A ship could have dozens or even hundreds of cannons. Even the smallest of merchant ships had at least a half dozen cannons. Ships often had more artillery on their decks than entire land based armies.
The soldiers of the Revolutionary army were equipped with muskets that were more or less identical to what the British were using.
After the war, there was a huge movement to disband the Federal army. Heck, the government had a fight on its hands just to issue money and even collect taxes.
This context shows that the Founders not only intended, but also assumed, that the population would/should be armed. And not only armed, but also at least on par with the military. If they could have seen the future they probably would have added some extra buffers to stop any weapon ownership restrictions. They would be horrified at the restrictions currently in place. The only good thing about the situation we are in is that you can overthrow the government even if there is a equipment gap(as evidenced by insurgent forces we've been fighting for the last 2 decades. American resistance fighters would make the terrorists look like noobs)
Home defense wasn't the point of the 2nd, nor is hunting. That's because the right to defend yourself and feed yourself is one of those basic human rights. It would never have crossed their minds that there would be restrictions on that.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
~2800 points 
