This game is going to blow here's why.

#161hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 7:00:29 PM
puffinslaughter posted...


Still, how much of the UK's population are murderers, compared to America's population? No guns would lead to overpopulation of animals, unless people switch to bows and arrows, which I doubt would happen. Those could be weapons too with no purpose other than to kill or collect. The bottom line for me is how they serve to defend.


I'd urge you to find more than a handful of biologists or zoologists who would agree with that statement. Population control is a non-scientific excuse hunters have been using for years to justify themselves, but it has no scientific backing. The animal populations we have today evolved fully capable of maintaining themselves at a sustainable level, and almost all scientists agree that external control by hunting is rarely, if ever, needed.

puffinslaughter posted...


First I just wanna say that I'm an independent. I'm non-biased, and I'm not trying to shove my views in your face. I don't watch MSNBC nor Fox News. That being said, my take is that fully automatic weapons like AKs and Uzis have no place in society. They're military grade weapons. However, pistols should be legal for self defense and rifles for controlling the animal population. Let's say John is a criminal. Since guns are illegal, he buys a 9mm off the black market. He decides to go to Tim's house to ransack the place and cause trouble. He knows Tim doesn't have a gun, since they're outlawed. The risk is even less for him since he knows his life is most likely not in jeopardy, which makes him more likely to commit the crime. He breaks into the house and startles Tim. Tim must concede and let John take whatever he wants because he has no way to deter John from his belongings. Nor does he have any way to defend himself when John shoots him for not cooperating.


I'm not disagreeing with that example in principle. But the UK shows us that even though things like that Tim/John example might happen when you outlaw guns, the number of murders you prevent will far outweigh the number you cause. It's kind of like saying doing CPR might actually end up killing a few people because you compress a person's chest too hard and damage their lungs. That's true in principle, but in actuality, CPR saves way more lives than it costs.

puffinslaughter posted...


Banning guns is also taking away the right to self-defense. What we need is more strict guidelines on who can own a gun. Obviously no criminal history, no confirmed mental disorders such as autism or bipolar disorder. They should have to go through a mandatory 3 month training and gun safety course, along with a mental evaluation.


I agree, and if that's all the majority of Americans are willing to do for now, I'm more than happy to take it. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress don't really care what most Americans want as long as the NRA will fund their next campaign.

But I do still think that in the long term, the way to maximally reduce our murder rate is to strongly curtail the ability to own any weapon that can kill as quickly, effectively, and easily as a gun. Obviously, we need to be more effective at fighting crime at the same time, but the UK gives us clear evidence that banning guns is a good solution.
#162LordPonchoPosted 3/25/2013 7:04:52 PM
You're failing to sew the point. Such measures will drastically reduce income across several industries, as well as the government. The cost to place such a ban would be expensive in itself. The leading murder cause is something that a band of guns isn't going to stop. Fans won't disappear, and they certainly will find ways of attaining guns illegally.

It would he a heavy loss for the country in terms of money (something we simply can't afford right now), and it would bring very little good.

Then there's some of the other things that others have pointed out.

If you're so intent on saving a few lives, how about we ban alcohol and tobacco. Same idea applies, government makes too much money off it. Banning those would cause for mass tax hikes.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#163TRC187Posted 3/25/2013 7:42:31 PM(edited)
hellfire582 posted...
TRC187 posted...


The only simple minded person here would be you bro.. You are thinking of right now, today, one week from now, etc.

The individuals who fought, died, designed, built, founded and governed this country to get us to where we are today know a hell of a lot more than you or I do. It comes down to the principle. The principle of altering, changing or circumventing something that is designed to act as the spinal cord of this country, is a means to an end. If one thing can be changed, why not something else? I'm not religious by any way, shape or form, but its basically the same principle as changing wording in the bible to justify an action.

The constitution was not made to evolve with time, it was created so this country would endure the trials and hardships of time.


So, you're arguing that the constitution is an ideal document authored by people who were somehow inherently more intelligent than modern people with new ideas, and you think I'm simple minded? I don't think a person's thinking could possibly get more simplistic and lazy when his argument is "the constitution was made by people who knew better than anyone today does, and therefore we shouldn't bother trying to alter it."

The founders of the US were certainly intelligent people, but they were also writing a document intended for the 18th century, which by the way was a time when slavery was acceptable. They didn't have any Godlike insight into how society would change in the next few centuries and how laws might have to change with them. They didn't know about guns with magazines large enough to commit mass murders or about a lot of the psychological illnesses that have been described today. They just wanted people to have guns to protect themselves from British incursions in a time with a relatively weak police force.

But, I guess by your thinking, which you claim is more complex than mine, we should just not worry about politics and turn to the constitution anytime we need to make a decision, since it's a perfect document and "spinal cord" of this country.



You're right, I must be lazy because I respect the individuals who wrote the constitution more than our modern day government. Silly of me to think that those individuals acted on morals and principle, rather money and power. Actually, they did have insight for what the United States would become, hence the necessity of such important and imperative documents. If you understood the fundamentals of the constitution, you'd understand that it was specifically designed and written so it COULD be referenced and looked to for decisions and answers.

And you're right again, mental illness didn't exist back then, video games and conservative thinking probably caused it. I hope banning AR15's, high-cap mags and expanding background checks cures it.

EDIT: Just to be clear though, I 100% support what puff said regarding a mandatory firearm training class, more stringent background checks and a way to track and maintain registraton with private firearm sales.
#164hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 7:28:56 PM
LordPoncho posted...
You're failing to sew the point. Such measures will drastically reduce income across several industries, as well as the government. The cost to place such a ban would be expensive in itself. The leading murder cause is something that a band of guns isn't going to stop. Fans won't disappear, and they certainly will find ways of attaining guns illegally.

It would he a heavy loss for the country in terms of money (something we simply can't afford right now), and it would bring very little good.

Then there's some of the other things that others have pointed out.

If you're so intent on saving a few lives, how about we ban alcohol and tobacco. Same idea applies, government makes too much money off it. Banning those would cause for mass tax hikes.


The economic considerations you mentioned are really insignificant. The vast majority of investment in guns and their associated parts is distributed in military contracts, not personal sales. A gun ban would just force manufacturers to either switch to producing arms used by the police or military, or merge with other companies that already do that. Upstream manufacturers of materials would be relatively unaffected because of the enormous size of our military budget.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying about alcohol and tobacco, because you certainly could argue that they result in the deaths of innocent people because of 2nd hand smoke and drunk drivers. However, these things can be more reliably addressed than gun control by banning smoking in public areas and instituting a much harsher penalty for a DUI.
#165hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 7:41:34 PM
TRC187 posted...
hellfire582 posted...
TRC187 posted...


The only simple minded person here would be you bro.. You are thinking of right now, today, one week from now, etc.

The individuals who fought, died, designed, built, founded and governed this country to get us to where we are today know a hell of a lot more than you or I do. It comes down to the principle. The principle of altering, changing or circumventing something that is designed to act as the spinal cord of this country, is a means to an end. If one thing can be changed, why not something else? I'm not religious by any way, shape or form, but its basically the same principle as changing wording in the bible to justify an action.

The constitution was not made to evolve with time, it was created so this country would endure the trials and hardships of time.


So, you're arguing that the constitution is an ideal document authored by people who were somehow inherently more intelligent than modern people with new ideas, and you think I'm simple minded? I don't think a person's thinking could possibly get more simplistic and lazy when his argument is "the constitution was made by people who knew better than anyone today does, and therefore we shouldn't bother trying to alter it."

The founders of the US were certainly intelligent people, but they were also writing a document intended for the 18th century, which by the way was a time when slavery was acceptable. They didn't have any Godlike insight into how society would change in the next few centuries and how laws might have to change with them. They didn't know about guns with magazines large enough to commit mass murders or about a lot of the psychological illnesses that have been described today. They just wanted people to have guns to protect themselves from British incursions in a time with a relatively weak police force.

But, I guess by your thinking, which you claim is more complex than mine, we should just not worry about politics and turn to the constitution anytime we need to make a decision, since it's a perfect document and "spinal cord" of this country.



You're right, I must be lazy because I respect the individuals who wrote the constitution more than our modern day government. Silly of me to think that those individuals acted on morals and principle, rather money and power. Actually, they did have insight for what the United States would become, hence the necessity of such important and imperative documents. If you understood the fundamentals of the constitution, you'd understand that it was specifically designed and written so it COULD be referenced and looked to for decisions and answers.

And you're right again, mental illness didn't exist back then, video games and conservative thinking probably caused it. I hope banning AR15's, high-cap mags and expanding background checks cures it.


I never said mental illness didn't exist back then, I said it wasn't described in the medical literature as it is today.

And you know how I know that the writers of the constitution didn't have insight into what the US would become? Simple - they were humans. Can you see into the future? If you can't, it's a pretty fair assumption that they couldn't either. Respecting the writer's of the constitution is one thing; idolizing them and throwing away your logic is another. A lot of the constitution is still relevant today, but some of it is not, and it's ridiculous to just be unwilling to change it because you think the founders were somehow superior to us.
#166TRC187Posted 3/25/2013 8:00:00 PM
hellfire582 posted...


I never said mental illness didn't exist back then, I said it wasn't described in the medical literature as it is today.

And you know how I know that the writers of the constitution didn't have insight into what the US would become? Simple - they were humans. Can you see into the future? If you can't, it's a pretty fair assumption that they couldn't either. Respecting the writer's of the constitution is one thing; idolizing them and throwing away your logic is another. A lot of the constitution is still relevant today, but some of it is not, and it's ridiculous to just be unwilling to change it because you think the founders were somehow superior to us.


Oh c'mon, it has nothing to do with seeing into the future, it has to do with experience and knowledge.

Heres a cheesy example. A good car salesman immediately knows who's down to buy or who's just looking.. How do they know? Its definitely not the ability to see the future, its the experience in the trade.. The founding fathers knew what typically happens to civilizations and the governments that govern them.

Imagine setting up a company and writing the company mission statement, ethics profile, management plan, HR policies, etc. Again, its not the ability to foresee the future, its the knowledge and foresight to build a successful, operational machine.
#167hellfire582Posted 3/25/2013 8:25:36 PM
TRC187 posted...
hellfire582 posted...


I never said mental illness didn't exist back then, I said it wasn't described in the medical literature as it is today.

And you know how I know that the writers of the constitution didn't have insight into what the US would become? Simple - they were humans. Can you see into the future? If you can't, it's a pretty fair assumption that they couldn't either. Respecting the writer's of the constitution is one thing; idolizing them and throwing away your logic is another. A lot of the constitution is still relevant today, but some of it is not, and it's ridiculous to just be unwilling to change it because you think the founders were somehow superior to us.


Oh c'mon, it has nothing to do with seeing into the future, it has to do with experience and knowledge.

Heres a cheesy example. A good car salesman immediately knows who's down to buy or who's just looking.. How do they know? Its definitely not the ability to see the future, its the experience in the trade.. The founding fathers knew what typically happens to civilizations and the governments that govern them.

Imagine setting up a company and writing the company mission statement, ethics profile, management plan, HR policies, etc. Again, its not the ability to foresee the future, its the knowledge and foresight to build a successful, operational machine.


Sure, they had plenty of knowledge about civilizations and governments, but they didn't know anything about how technology was going to develop. They didn't know that we'd eventually have assault weapons and other guns that are far more potent than the ones of their time. That's why they had the foresight to allow amendments to the constitution. Even they realized that they can only write a document based on their contemporary perspective rather than an immutable decree.

For example, they didn't realize that slavery would become socially unacceptable, which is why they didn't really address it. But since the constitution can be amended, we were able to abolish slavery when people finally realized how wrong it is. The same can be said about guns. People wrote the second amendment from an 18th century perspective, and there's no reason we shouldn't consider reamending the constitution to change it to fit modern times.
#168cheese_game619Posted 3/25/2013 9:03:54 PM
From: TRC187
Heres a cheesy example.

http://i.imgur.com/9kOpFI1.jpg

From: TRC187
A good car salesman immediately knows who's down to buy or who's just looking.. How do they know? Its definitely not the ability to see the future, its the experience in the trade.. The founding fathers knew what typically happens to civilizations and the governments that govern them.

Imagine setting up a company and writing the company mission statement, ethics profile, management plan, HR policies, etc. Again, its not the ability to foresee the future, its the knowledge and foresight to build a successful, operational machine.

what happens when no one goes to car lots any more because its all done over the internet

being unable or unwilling to reassess is a weakness
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg
#169LordPonchoPosted 3/25/2013 9:19:41 PM
cheese_game619 posted...
From: TRC187
Heres a cheesy example.

http://i.imgur.com/9kOpFI1.jpg

From: TRC187
A good car salesman immediately knows who's down to buy or who's just looking.. How do they know? Its definitely not the ability to see the future, its the experience in the trade.. The founding fathers knew what typically happens to civilizations and the governments that govern them.

Imagine setting up a company and writing the company mission statement, ethics profile, management plan, HR policies, etc. Again, its not the ability to foresee the future, its the knowledge and foresight to build a successful, operational machine.

what happens when no one goes to car lots any more because its all done over the internet

being unable or unwilling to reassess is a weakness


Car sales here is far more commonly done on lots.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#170cheese_game619Posted 3/25/2013 9:22:42 PM
are you missing the point on purpose orrrr.... nah
---
http://i.imgur.com/z68cb.png
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m070ogasVv1qeewbgo2_500.jpg