Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DieChecker

Gun Control Poll

Gun Control in the US   114 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the best future for gun control in the US?

    • Strongly feel we should ban all guns. No civilian guns.
      5
    • Ban guns other then for strict purposes (Like Australia).
      19
    • Pass stronger gun regulations. More is better.
      13
    • Keep things as they are. Present laws are fine.
      27
    • Remove some, or many, of the current gun laws. See 2nd Amendment.
      50

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

707 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

If one takes a position on an issue that doesn't have a benefit to one's self, what is their motivation? Well, for Daniel and others like himself, it is a priciple they are defending. They are defending an inalienable right that they themselves don't exercise. They are defending the principle of what being a 'free man' is.

What if we apply the same logic people use against guns to one of the other Ammendments? Let's say that 1 person in 2 million dies because they follow a religion called Zuckliteism. Should Zuckliteism be curtailed or banned from practice to save about 100 people a year?

What if gathering at county fairs resulted in 1 person dying for every million? Should we ban county fairs to preserve the lives of those 100 to 200 people per year? Ban peaceful gathering to save lives? 100% it would work, correct?

EDIT: Maybe just legislate the hell out of county fairs, so that you have to have insurance and a license to get in the gate???

Edited by DieChecker
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we apply the same logic people use against guns to one of the other Ammendments? Let's say that 1 person in 2 million dies because they follow a religion called Zuckliteism. Should Zuckliteism be curtailed or banned from practice to save about 100 people a year?

What if gathering at county fairs resulted in 1 person dying for every million? Should we ban county fairs to preserve the lives of those 100 to 200 people per year? Ban peaceful gathering to save lives? 100% it would work, correct?

I hope I didn't misrepresent my point. I'm an admitted extremist for personal liberty, hence I don't support prohibition of any freedom, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom.

So I don't support religious freedom to sacrifice children, but do fully support someone's right to call me a douchebag.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I didn't misrepresent my point. I'm an admitted extremist for personal liberty, hence I don't support prohibition of any freedom, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom.

So I don't support religious freedom to sacrifice children, but do fully support someone's right to call me a douchebag.

What if it was something like a Sun Dance, where an adult knowingly performs a dangerous religious act, and occasionally someone (one in a million) would be killed??

Though I do think, now that I've mentioned it, that the Sun Dance ceremony has been banned in the US (maybe not on the Res?)? I'll check....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it was something like a Sun Dance, where an adult knowingly performs a dangerous religious act, and occasionally someone (one in a million) would be killed??

Though I do think, now that I've mentioned it, that the Sun Dance ceremony has been banned in the US (maybe not on the Res?)? I'll check....

Again, if this 'sun dance' doesn't infringe on someone else's liberties, have at it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no liberty without life. How can one truly defend liberty without defending life?

Imagine, you're alive, and you're allowed to do stuff. Cool! :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh.... But UM is full of Dreamers. :yes:

Touche`!!!!!

I'll pay that, and it is such a good answer, I retract my comment. I had not considered that, but now that I have, I see that you are right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what do you expect a 100 pound woman to do against a 250 pound attacker. It's cool that you're tough and all, but I'm concerned for those who aren't 'tough'.

That is a fair question.

I would again cite Australian and British examples, no women in our countries carry personal firearms.

LOL - tough and all, that made me chuckle to be honest, it's not unusual for my colleagues to do the same as I. I do not consider myself tough at all, I consider myself an Average Aussie who can look after himself. Half the people I work with were at boxing training with me last night. I just don't think having a gun makes one though, it can make one intimidating, but not tough. A real man would rather Queensbury Rules than a firearm.

But back to the question, I would simply suggest one does not put oneself in a dangerous situation like a park at night and that sort of thing, and if at home, take appropriate security measures, don't open the door etc. One fellow came around to sell home insurance and my wife did not know he was coming over, as he reached for the door, she was too fast and locked it and called me at the same time to verify his story, to which he looked a little offended and surprised, I told her she did the right thing. Have a big dog in the yard, make sure your locks are in good working order and actually do what they are supposed to, good floodlighting to the perimeter of the house, spend a little extra on security screens for windows and that sure is more than enough here from 99.9% of cases. And there should not even be a 0.01% left over I realise, but the criminal element makes that impossible, the one big trade off is not more accidental gun deaths, no more public massacres, no more domestic arguments being ended with a bullet which will be a trade off in the positive.

Common sense and a little vigilance goes a long way. It gets most people through life without a gun outside of America.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sun Dance....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Dance

Still not sure if it is illegal in the US and Canada still. Though it is clear that it was banned at one time in both nations. Appears that law enforcement turns a blind eye to this, just as they do to the "snake handlers" in the US South. Who also are killed occasionally for their religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weak without a gun LOL. Man up.

I'd prefer not to, thank you. I always carry a gun when I'm hiking alone in the woods. It, and my big ol' dog, were the only things standing in the way of me getting raped, or worse, by three psychos.

Guns are a useful tool that I'd rather have and not need than need and not have. I've never actually used a fire extinguisher, but I have one in the car and various places around the house.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weak without a gun LOL. Man up.

I'd prefer not to, thank you. I always carry a gun when I'm hiking alone in the woods. It, and my big ol' dog, were the only things standing in the way of me getting raped, or worse, by three psychos.

Guns are a useful tool that I'd rather have and not need than need and not have. I've never actually used a fire extinguisher, but I have one in the car and various places around the house.

Plus, this "macho" codswallop about being a man and fighting fair and not relying on a gun is really stupid. When it comes to my life, or the life of my loved ones, why in the hell would I ever want to fight fair?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fair question.

I would again cite Australian and British examples, no women in our countries carry personal firearms.

LOL - tough and all, that made me chuckle to be honest, it's not unusual for my colleagues to do the same as I. I do not consider myself tough at all, I consider myself an Average Aussie who can look after himself. Half the people I work with were at boxing training with me last night. I just don't think having a gun makes one though, it can make one intimidating, but not tough. A real man would rather Queensbury Rules than a firearm.

But back to the question, I would simply suggest one does not put oneself in a dangerous situation like a park at night and that sort of thing, and if at home, take appropriate security measures, don't open the door etc. One fellow came around to sell home insurance and my wife did not know he was coming over, as he reached for the door, she was too fast and locked it and called me at the same time to verify his story, to which he looked a little offended and surprised, I told her she did the right thing. Have a big dog in the yard, make sure your locks are in good working order and actually do what they are supposed to, good floodlighting to the perimeter of the house, spend a little extra on security screens for windows and that sure is more than enough here from 99.9% of cases. And there should not even be a 0.01% left over I realise, but the criminal element makes that impossible, the one big trade off is not more accidental gun deaths, no more public massacres, no more domestic arguments being ended with a bullet which will be a trade off in the positive.

Common sense and a little vigilance goes a long way. It gets most people through life without a gun outside of America.

Nice little box you have there. I suggest actually looking up living arrangements in US cities. Having a big dog (which is subjective) isn't allowed in many communities inside of our cities. Not too mention, your scenario still included your wife being 'fast'. What if someone isn't fast, can't afford putting bars on their apt (why would I invest in someone else's property), and isn't strong enough to fight 'like a man'. They're SOL in your utopia.

Why are you so bent at putting those unable at such an imposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I have to elaborate on this point, since you clearly have all the answers.

Why the heck argue with me then?

If one takes a position on an issue that doesn't have a benefit to one's self, what is their motivation? Well, for Daniel and others like himself, it is a priciple they are defending. They are defending an inalienable right that they themselves don't exercise. They are defending the principle of what being a 'free man' is.

Someone who likes guns can be expected to support the ownership of guns, and someone who doesn't like guns can be expected to not.

All I asked for was a reason, and I got excuses instead. To defend citizens against the Government - come on man, you're talking to ME now. That might wash in some media soaked debate that was never intended to do anything, but in the real world, it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Quite frankly, so is the home invasion excuse. Other countries do not consider that good enough reason to allow a deadly weapon in every home and rejected it. But then again, other countries do not have a 12 billion dollar a year industry to protect. Funny how many US "truthers" are out there trying to frame the Government for 911, yet the obvious conspiracy is not only going on under their noses, they pledge their lives to defend it!!! And it has 12 billion reasons every year to keep the situation just how it is.

Just like many others in America fight for legal equality for gays to be married in the eyes of the state. I'm not gay, but I defend the principle of equality before the eyes of the law. Gay people being married has no benefit to myself, but I support the priniple of equality despite me not receiving a benefit for such a change.

We can go on... those who don't smoke marijuana but support legalization have more credibility than the hippy who smokes. They both can make the same exact factual statement, but the non smoker's statement will have more weight.

They present a case with facts and figures. Why does Gay Marriage get so much opposition? Because the promoters are full of crap and pumping up numbers for support figures. Voting proves that. People who want marijuana legalised want it because of medicinal reasons and show proof as to why they feel it should be available. What has weight is facts no matter how genuine one might seem, not matter how bad one might want a thing, and no matter how well something is presented, if you don't have facts behind you, it will only take on fact to knock a house of cards down. The figures I am seeing is 12 billion annually in the only country that both has a dependant gun culture, as well as insane profits through the gun industry. Every time there is a public shooting in the states, gun sales rocket, yet Australia is a living example that removing guns stops gun massacre. You and I both know that from those sales, someone is going to die innocently in an accident, that's just not worth keeping paranoia alive the Gun Industry coffers full.

They are the facts that concern me. Whilst many people feel safe, someone is going to die for no good reason to compensate for the personal security. And more bad people are going to buy guns than good people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find it ironic that one statement alludes to how menacing and dangerous guns are, then another post refers to them as toys (pop guns). Which is it?

You tell me, can you tell the difference between a person and a tank? I sure can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tell me, can you tell the difference between a person and a tank? I sure can.

Yes, but I'm not the one having consistency issues. I don't refer to firearms as 'dangerous' in one statement, then liken them to toys in another.

They're always a lethal tool to myself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we apply the same logic people use against guns to one of the other Ammendments? Let's say that 1 person in 2 million dies because they follow a religion called Zuckliteism. Should Zuckliteism be curtailed or banned from practice to save about 100 people a year?

In that instance yes, definitely and without doubt, of course we should be rid of it, we should be rid of all religion as soon as the human species matures a bit. That too is an eventuality. We do not have Aleprechaunists or Aunicornists, it's only a matter of time before the term Atheist is redundant as well.

What if gathering at county fairs resulted in 1 person dying for every million? Should we ban county fairs to preserve the lives of those 100 to 200 people per year? Ban peaceful gathering to save lives? 100% it would work, correct?

EDIT: Maybe just legislate the hell out of county fairs, so that you have to have insurance and a license to get in the gate???

With one person dying every year, it has to have a common reason? Which you would simply fix - correct? It is mass problems spread out that create the difficulties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck argue with me then?

All I asked for was a reason, and I got excuses instead. To defend citizens against the Government - come on man, you're talking to ME now. That might wash in some media soaked debate that was never intended to do anything, but in the real world, it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Quite frankly, so is the home invasion excuse. Other countries do not consider that good enough reason to allow a deadly weapon in every home and rejected it. But then again, other countries do not have a 12 billion dollar a year industry to protect. Funny how many US "truthers" are out there trying to frame the Government for 911, yet the obvious conspiracy is not only going on under their noses, they pledge their lives to defend it!!! And it has 12 billion reasons every year to keep the situation just how it is.

They present a case with facts and figures. Why does Gay Marriage get so much opposition? Because the promoters are full of crap and pumping up numbers for support figures. Voting proves that. People who want marijuana legalised want it because of medicinal reasons and show proof as to why they feel it should be available. What has weight is facts no matter how genuine one might seem, not matter how bad one might want a thing, and no matter how well something is presented, if you don't have facts behind you, it will only take on fact to knock a house of cards down. The figures I am seeing is 12 billion annually in the only country that both has a dependant gun culture, as well as insane profits through the gun industry. Every time there is a public shooting in the states, gun sales rocket, yet Australia is a living example that removing guns stops gun massacre. You and I both know that from those sales, someone is going to die innocently in an accident, that's just not worth keeping paranoia alive the Gun Industry coffers full.

They are the facts that concern me. Whilst many people feel safe, someone is going to die for no good reason to compensate for the personal security. And more bad people are going to buy guns than good people.

Damn it. That whole post wasn't an invitation to tangent, it was trying to show how credibility is bolstered when you have 'no dog in the fight'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but I'm not the one having consistency issues. I don't refer to firearms as 'dangerous' in one statement, then liken them to toys in another.

Neither do I, you're just being a tosser is all. If you think you can make a grammatical issue out of your poor attempt to undermine reasoning, think again. I'll make you look the entire fool you are acting right now.

I said a Gun is a deadly weapon against a person, and it is useless against a tank, what part of that are you having trouble with? Or do you wish to argue that a tank is every bit as vulnerable to a shotgun as a human being is?

Now grow up a little and get back into the conversation on an adult level again as you were previously.

They're always a lethal tool to myself.

Keep telling yourself that, you seem to be believing it, perhaps you can convince other like minded people to swallow that silly mantra. It's a deadly weapon, get over it and stop trying to pad the issue. Guns exist to kill. Live with it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it. That whole post wasn't an invitation to tangent, it was trying to show how credibility is bolstered when you have 'no dog in the fight'.

That's your proverbial white flag is it?

Can't back your position with fact or reasoning hey? Well well, what a shock. Looks like my imaginary dog has more in him than you thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we apply the same logic people use against guns to one of the other Ammendments? Let's say that 1 person in 2 million dies because they follow a religion called Zuckliteism. Should Zuckliteism be curtailed or banned from practice to save about 100 people a year?

What if gathering at county fairs resulted in 1 person dying for every million? Should we ban county fairs to preserve the lives of those 100 to 200 people per year? Ban peaceful gathering to save lives? 100% it would work, correct?

EDIT: Maybe just legislate the hell out of county fairs, so that you have to have insurance and a license to get in the gate???

How many Zucklitists would there be if 10,000 of them died from their worship every year?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do I, you're just being a tosser is all. If you think you can make a grammatical issue out of your poor attempt to undermine reasoning, think again. I'll make you look the entire fool you are acting right now.

I said a Gun is a deadly weapon against a person, and it is useless against a tank, what part of that are you having trouble with? Or do you wish to argue that a tank is every bit as vulnerable to a shotgun as a human being is?

Now grow up a little and get back into the conversation on an adult level again as you were previously.

Keep telling yourself that, you seem to be believing it, perhaps you can convince other like minded people to swallow that silly mantra. It's a deadly weapon, get over it and stop trying to pad the issue. Guns exist to kill. Live with it.

Not sure what a 'tosser' is, but thanks? Yeah, a lethal tool does kill, only disagreeance is that I never refer to guns as toys. You make them out to be a menace in one instance, but unable to in another. People shot with a gun don't fare well, whether it's a grandma, 20 year old, cop, civilian, or soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer not to, thank you. I always carry a gun when I'm hiking alone in the woods. It, and my big ol' dog, were the only things standing in the way of me getting raped, or worse, by three psychos.

Well I am sure glad you got out of it OK, but I have to say, I feel the Dog would have been the biggest deterrent, and sufficient on his own. May I ask if the potential offenders incarcerated or charged for harassing you? And may I ask, did you brandish or use your gun?

Guns are a useful tool that I'd rather have and not need than need and not have. I've never actually used a fire extinguisher, but I have one in the car and various places around the house.

You could consider moving to Australia or the UK, guns will become something you do not "need" let alone allowed.

How are guns a "useful" tool?

What concerns me with people in that situation is that they use a gun as something to hide behind instead of facing the world. Do you not feel that a woman, who has been violated in some way, who may now carry a gun is not going to have an itchy trigger finger, which has high potential to result in innocent killings? The worst part is you cannot blame anyone in that situation can one? We just have to accept that an innocent lie was taken due to fear instilled by someone completely different. Women who have had these experiences have every right to fear the world around them, and perhaps to even hate men, which is prevalent. That's not a person who should have a weapon IMHO, even though a good argument to own one exists. It is a very difficult thing to discuss with so many emotions being brought up because of potential and hypothetical situations, in the end, all I can say if banning guns removed all public gun massacre in Australia, and if that is not something of a shining achievement people wish to try and strive for, the only reason I can see to have such a dependency on gun is because people believe that is the case, and who benefits from that? A 12 Billion dollar a years industry does, that's who really wins in the end. The one obvious conspiracy that US citizens refuse to face.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what a 'tosser' is, but thanks? Yeah, a lethal tool does kill, only disagreeance is that I never refer to guns as toys. You make them out to be a menace in one instance, but unable to in another. People shot with a gun don't fare well, whether it's a grandma, 20 year old, cop, civilian, or soldier.

I'll just suggest you brush up on Aussie slang.

A gun is not a Lethal tool. It is a weapon. A SIckle is a lethal tool, it has a primary function that is not killing other people.

People shot with a gun do not fare well no matter their age yes, and a tank will not be bothered by a gun no matter if it is US, Japanese, or Russian. You cannot possibly be stupid enough to think that a gun is as effective against a tank as it is against Grandma, nobody on earth is that stupid.

Are you quite finished with your failed analogy attack now? You are not doing your intellect any favours I assure you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if this 'sun dance' doesn't infringe on someone else's liberties, have at it.

He said someone else would be killed for sure, I'd call that an infringement on rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just suggest you brush up on Aussie slang.

A gun is not a Lethal tool. It is a weapon. A SIckle is a lethal tool, it has a primary function that is not killing other people.

People shot with a gun do not fare well no matter their age yes, and a tank will not be bothered by a gun no matter if it is US, Japanese, or Russian. You cannot possibly be stupid enough to think that a gun is as effective against a tank as it is against Grandma, nobody on earth is that stupid.

Are you quite finished with your failed analogy attack now? You are not doing your intellect any favours I assure you.

You're doing all the favors for me.

I mean, how do insrgents fight back against these invincible military's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Plus, this "macho" codswallop about being a man and fighting fair and not relying on a gun is really stupid. When it comes to my life, or the life of my loved ones, why in the hell would I ever want to fight fair?

If you think that is "macho" I feel sorry for you.

And you are a hypocrite, I was called "weak" for not wanting to have a gun, all I said was I do not need one, I am self capable, which REALLY seems to have hit some nerves in here hey? Bit close to home is it?

If you take guns away from every person, you wont have to have a gunfight, why do so many struggle to comprehending that bit?

How about this - Why the hell would you WANT to fight in the first place? It's about defence isn't it? Gee, such a pacifist you are....... :rolleyes:

Nobody in the US or Australia has guns, we get along just fine, and in Australia, we do not miss the public shootings one little bit. Last one was 1996, the same year we began banning guns. Yet you do not seem to think so many lives is worth your personal piece of mind? All you are doing is showing worse and worse reasons to hang onto this archaic barbaric culture that is without doubt propagated by a very lucrative Industry that wants you to think you need guns. And they have 12 Billion reasons every year to keep that happening.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.