Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:26 AM   #51
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
AFAIC, the government tyranny argument was discarded by the pro-gun crowd long ago. Since 2001, our government has steadily chipped away at our rights. Where have all those oh-so-patriotic gun owners taken up arms to protect our rights? Oh yeah, the 2nd amendment is the only right they really care about.
rdowns is offline   2
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:29 AM   #52
hafr
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
So you don't think less guns = less gun violence? You don't think less assault weapons = less mass shooting deaths? I say you're wrong.
I've never said either of those things, what I said was there is no proof (at least not that I know of, and I've read quite a bit about it, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the implementation of tougher gun laws in a society makes said society safer.

People do not become violent because of the presence of guns. People are not holding back from hurting others because of the lack of guns. Implementation of tougher gun laws does not affect those who own guns to hurt other people. The absolute majority of incidents like Aurora are planned.

Please note I'm not taking a stand for or against guns, I'm just saying the kind of arguments based on simplistic logic, like the ones you're using here (gun control -> less guns -> win) is based on conventional wisdom, and burping these tired old arguments over and over again A) doesn't make them truer and B) steals energy away from what should REALLY be discussed - namely how to make societies safer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Well then ... share that fact (or facts) with us.

You could end the whole debate right here.
What's your take on this article? http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

What about these statistics? http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation...t-crime-rates/
hafr is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:36 AM   #53
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
So you replied to one of my quotes, but totally ignored the first one.

I find it laughable that you have so trust in your government. There are many reasons to own guns.

People defend their lives every day from assailants.

If it weren't for guns George Zimmerman would probably be dead today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Being prepared to take arms is not the same thing as being a "well" regulated militia. While I understand why something like this was written into the constitution 500 years ago- I also understand that there were many things written into the consitution that just don't translate 500 years later (unless you believe that some should be considered 3/5 person). Owning a gun doesn't automatic qualify you as well-trained. I can buy a gun in 5 minutes here in Texas (we have gun shows every weekend). However, I certainly wouldn't trust myself to face-off against our military if it came to that.


I find it laughable, and frankly downright scary, that simply owning a gun makes one feel safe from the horrors of government "tyranny". When faced with being "protected" by lovers of the 2nd Amendment, I think I would take my chances with the tyrannical government.
ericrwalker is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:36 AM   #54
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
We seem to be doing all right for drivers licenses. Everyone has to take a test to get one, and every few years, we have to renew it and do a basic eye exam and road sign test at the DMV.

Require that of gun owners. They have to pass a safety test by a trained examiner to be allowed to own a gun and every few years, they have to take a mental health exam to make sure they haven't gone off the deep end. But that'll never happen, because freedom or something
I agree. But I believe that's just half of the solution.

The other half is to determine and enforce standards and restrictions for guns to make them "street legal" like cars. I'd first go after magazine capacity, button-releases and sliding stocks that allow guns to more easily fire like automatic weapons. A next step would be to apply biometric technology that only allows the owner to shoot the gun.

We can't take away the right to bear arms. But I see not reason why we can't make legal guns less potentially destructive. Enforcing that and more rigorous testing and licensing for people should help to reduce the number of mass shootings in the U.S.
citizenzen is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:38 AM   #55
Happybunny
macrumors 68000
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
The whole interview was sent out yesterday evening, the general opinion was this man (Alex Jones) is a moron. But maybe more worrying was a majority see him as a archetypical American.
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:40 AM   #56
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
That's rather anti- American of you.
It's not anti-American to hope that a different mix of Supreme Court justices rules differently on an issue.

Otherwise, every anti-abortion advocate would likely qualify as being anti-American as well.

The court changes over time. Rulings change over time.

Both sides need to understand and accept that.
citizenzen is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:54 AM   #57
hafr
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by domrevans View Post
Could you run into a school and kill 20+ people with a hammer?

Are there many lonely mentally unstable people who obsess about hammers and collect them?

I did not think the original debate was about reducing crime and violence in society per say, I thought it was about helping prevent mass school shootings? Or are these school shootings acceptable collateral damage, so long as you can be suitably armed and prepared for the impending rise of New World Order?
Have you heard about the Utoya massacre?

Only being interested in trying to reduce the number of guns in society and ignoring the question of violent crime in general is pretty stupid... It's like wanting to be protected from car jackings by making the car bullet proof but not locking the doors...

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Whose been more successful at enacting change? Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Hamas?

I'd say the former two have been far more successful than the latter which is still a violent group.

And did the IRA achieve more since they gave up their armed campaign, or before?
I'd like to see what would be left of Palestine without Hamas though... Or how the Second World War would have ended with (the racist apartheid proponent) Ghandi's way of doing things.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
We do that too. There are limits on the sale of Everclear, which is sold in 150 and 190-proof strengths. The higher proof is illegal or highly limited in 13 states.
190 proof is 95 %, and it's impossible to distill alcohol to be more than 96 %. That limitation is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard of, is it really true?

Like saying everyone can carry assault rifles with 95 bullets, but 96 is illegal.
hafr is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:55 AM   #58
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
So you replied to one of my quotes, but totally ignored the first one.

I find it laughable that you have so trust in your government. There are many reasons to own guns.

People defend their lives every day from assailants.

If it weren't for guns George Zimmerman would probably be dead today.
Those in 1788 also considered black men as 3/5 of a person and didn't believe women deserved the right to vote. Because of that, I take 500 year old quotes with a grain of salt.

And no, I don't completely trust my government - however, I trust those who think owning a gun makes them Rambo even less.

And why are you so obsessed with George Zimmerman? There are much, much better examples for your argument than him. If he wasn't irresponsibly carrying a weapon, it could also be argued that Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
Moyank24 is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:58 AM   #59
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
Have you heard about the Utoya massacre?
Considering Breivik used firearms, I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal of domrevans's rebuttal of the "hammer argument."

Interestingly, from reading the wikipedia article, I've learned that Breivik originally attempted to illegally purchase weapons in Prague, but was unable. He subsequently was able to legally purchase them Norway. (Including 10 thrity-round magazines over the Internet from the USA.)
elistan is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:58 AM   #60
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
I am part of the Zimmerman fan club. From my point of view he was responsible with the gun. He didn't shoot until he was getting his ass beat. Sucks when you're jumped in the dark and don't see it coming.


You seem to think that the government is always there for your good. You never know when there might be a civil war or an oppressive government. With any luck we'll have a republican president next time around and maybe you won't be so trusting in your government again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Those in 1788 also considered black men as 3/5 of a person and didn't believe women deserved the right to vote. Because of that, I take 500 year old quotes with a grain of salt.

And no, I don't completely trust my government - however, I trust those who think owning a gun makes them Rambo even less.

And why are you so obsessed with George Zimmerman? There are much, much better examples for your argument than him. If he wasn't irresponsibly carrying a weapon, it could also be argued that Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
ericrwalker is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:02 AM   #61
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
190 proof is 95 %, and it's impossible to distill alcohol to be more than 96 %. That limitation is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard of, is it really true?
Huh. According to wikipedia it is.

Quote:
United States

Some municipalities, such as Chicago, have banned Everclear even though the states in which they are located allow it to be sold.

Consumers may legally purchase Everclear in Pennsylvania but must first obtain a permit for it and agree that it shall not be consumed as beverage alcohol and shall not be furnished for any reason to another person.[2]

190-proof

In the United States, it is illegal to sell 190-proof Everclear in California,[citation needed] Florida,[3] Hawaii,[citation needed] Iowa,[4] Maine,[citation needed] Massachusetts,[citation needed] Minnesota[5], Nevada[6],New Hampshire,[citation needed] North Carolina,[7] Virginia,[citation needed] and West Virginia.[citation needed]

It can be purchased in Ohio but only under severe restrictions.

151-proof

It is legal to sell 151-proof Everclear in Kansas,[citation needed] Minnesota[8], Washington,[citation needed], Texas and West Virginia.[citation needed]
Note all the [citation needed] bits though.
Of course, there's no indication there whether these bans have any effect on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related incidents.
elistan is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:03 AM   #62
Mr-Kerrse
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Having read a few posts in this thread i am glad i don't live where you live !

I need a gun because there might be a civil war or oppresive government

I am quite happy where i live not having a gun or the need to have a gun or the desire to ever own a gun.

Funny enough i can walk down the road anytime of day or night without the worrying about getting shot !

Why would anyone want to live in a place where you only feel safe if you have a gun !
Mr-Kerrse is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:04 AM   #63
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
Sucks when you're jumped in the dark and don't see it coming.
Has that been established? I thought there was still controversy about how the confrontation happened - ie, who was the initial agressor, etc.
elistan is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:05 AM   #64
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
I am part of the Zimmerman fan club. From my point of view he was responsible with the gun. He didn't shoot until he was getting his ass beat. Sucks when you're jumped in the dark and don't see it coming.
Um, it's not ok to shoot someone just because you are losing a fight. You must have a reasonable belief that you are in grave physical danger. Mr. Zimmerman was allegedly acting as an aggressor, or at least he was following an innocent person. He had NO legal right to shoot the kid for getting punched in the nose one time.

To suggest he did is a joke.

(edit) Actually, it's a sad commentary that some people are so pro-gun that they would argue that it's ok to kill an unarmed teenager for confronting someone who was armed and who was following them in what was clearly a threatening manner.
mcrain is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:05 AM   #65
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
That's rather anti- American of you.
So do you agree that everyone on the right who wants Roe v Wade overturned is anti-American?
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:06 AM   #66
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
You can get shot or attacked with random weapons anywhere. No matter what city/town or country you live in.

The famous news headline "Never would have thought something like this could happen here".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-Kerrse View Post
Having read a few posts in this thread i am glad i don't live where you live !

I need a gun because there might be a civil war or oppresive government

I am quite happy where i live not having a gun or the need to have a gun or the desire to ever own a gun.

Funny enough i can walk down the road anytime of day or night without the worrying about getting shot !

Why would anyone want to live in a place where you only feel safe if you have a gun !
ericrwalker is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:06 AM   #67
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
That's rather anti- American of you.
What an absurd statement to make. I guess you feel that house members who voted to repeal the constitutional AFA as anti-American. What about those who supported the 140+ anti-abortion laws the past 2 years? Last I looked, the SC affirmed a woman's right to an abortion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post

If it weren't for guns George Zimmerman would probably be dead today.

I think you mean Trayvon Martin would likely be alive.

Of course, I'd expect you to support SYG laws despite the evidence showing states with SYG laws have higher rates of homicide.


Quote:
In 2005, Florida became the first of nearly two-dozen states to pass a "stand your ground" law that removed the requirement to retreat. If you felt at risk of harm in a park or on the street, you could use lethal force to defend yourself. The shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., drew national attention to these laws.

Now, researchers who've studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws.

"These laws lower the cost of using lethal force," says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it."
rdowns is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:11 AM   #68
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Um, it's not ok to shoot someone just because you are losing a fight. You must have a reasonable belief that you are in grave physical danger. Mr. Zimmerman was allegedly acting as an aggressor, or at least he was following an innocent person. He had NO legal right to shoot the kid for getting punched in the nose one time.

To suggest he did is a joke.

Losing a fight? Sorry, what's your definition of a fight. Did someone ring a bell and they touch gloves or something. It would appear he was attacked and was fighting for his own life.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Has that been established? I thought there was still controversy about how the confrontation happened - ie, who was the initial agressor, etc.
There is plenty of evidence of this, though the media seems to have an agenda.

One might take a look at the other side of the argument and check out http://theconservativetreehouse.com

Enough about Zimmerman in this thread, new Zimmerman stuff can go here.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1340621
ericrwalker is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:15 AM   #69
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Huh. According to wikipedia it is.



Note all the [citation needed] bits though.
Of course, there's no indication there whether these bans have any effect on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related incidents.
They are being sold by the "proof number" which is not the same as "proof by volume",190 proof for instance is 95% proof by volume.You obviously can't have more than 100% proof by volume,I also believe in the US proof by volume must be on the container.
Peterkro is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:21 AM   #70
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
I am part of the Zimmerman fan club. From my point of view he was responsible with the gun. He didn't shoot until he was getting his ass beat. Sucks when you're jumped in the dark and don't see it coming.


You seem to think that the government is always there for your good. You never know when there might be a civil war or an oppressive government. With any luck we'll have a republican president next time around and maybe you won't be so trusting in your government again.
What makes you think that I believe the government is there for my good? You assume many things - none of which are close to being correct.

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the US government. Maybe I should purchase a gun - I wonder if being armed will make them give me the rights they are withholding?

And I find it laughable that as someone who seems to be so supportive of certain rights, that you would vote Republican - they are the party that is most in favor of removing rights. Don't you see the irony? Historically, those in favor of the second amendment aren't in favor of much else. But, hey, who needs equal rights when I can own a gun!!
Moyank24 is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:25 AM   #71
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
I think you mean Trayvon Martin would likely be alive.

Alive and facing 2nd degree murder charges.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
And I find it laughable that as someone who seems to be so supportive of certain rights, that you would vote Republican - they are the party that is most in favor of removing rights. Don't you see the irony? Historically, those in favor of the second amendment aren't in favor of much else. But, hey, who needs equal rights when I can own a gun!!

Republican is the better of the two evils. Libertarian would be the better choice if the candidate has a chance the win the election.
ericrwalker is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:27 AM   #72
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by hafr View Post
First of all I must say that I appreciate a well-sourced article like that. Thank you for providing it.

Here is one for you from the American Journal of Epidemiology: Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

As a fan of science I've noted that there is usually more than one theory vying to be recognized as the most accurately explanation of a subject of study. I have no doubt that in the study of firearms there will be articles—like the one you linked to—arguing with evidence for there being no connection to the number of guns correlating to the amount of gun violence. And there will be studies like the one I linked to that associate the presence of firearms with an increased risk of gun violence.

Neither one is in itself "fact" or "proof" that settles the issue. And that is the problem that I had with the wording of your previous post, that somehow it was an established fact that there is nothing supporting the claim that a society becomes more safe by imposing tougher gun laws.

There are no established facts. There is a great need to study this issue in depth, by many sources, in order to come to a better understanding and general consensus about firearms, their value to society and the best ways to regulate them. Bring on the studies. Let's look at the issue and over time gain a better understanding of it.
citizenzen is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:28 AM   #73
Mr-Kerrse
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
You can get shot or attacked with random weapons anywhere. No matter what city/town or country you live in.

The famous news headline "Never would have thought something like this could happen here".
I don't think it will happen where i live i am 99.9% sure of that unless a local farmer goes on the rampage, i certainly don't live in fear of it or expect it to ever happen.

I put that down to the fact we don't have guns as an everyday thing.
Mr-Kerrse is offline   0
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:28 AM   #74
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
Republican is the better of the two evils. Libertarian would be the better choice if the candidate has a chance the win the election.
Of course it's the better of two evils for you. You have all your rights.

Seriously. It's amazing how hypocritical someone can become when they are scared the big bad black man is going to take their guns away.
Moyank24 is offline   1
Old Jan 9, 2013, 11:32 AM   #75
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
Losing a fight? Sorry, what's your definition of a fight. Did someone ring a bell and they touch gloves or something. It would appear he was attacked and was fighting for his own life
Trayvon was being followed. He confronted the stranger who was pursuing him in an advantageous manner. The MOST he did was hit the guy one time and knock him down. That's it. There is NO evidence that Trayvon continued his attacks other than to demand that the guy who was following him cut it out. There is NO evidene Trayvon would have done anything more had Zimmerman merely walked away. Instead, Zimmerman pulled his gun and killed the kid.

Under the letter of the law, he's probably not guilty of first degree murder, but the law is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
Alive and facing 2nd degree murder charges
Absolutely NO evidence of that other than the kid being black. Other than that, what could possibly make you think that Trayvon had any evil intentions? He was unarmed. He wasn't following Zimmerman. He was on the phone. The ONLY person who had a right to stand their ground was Trayvon. Right?
mcrain is offline   0


Closed Thread
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN Fires Piers Morgan LIVEFRMNYC Politics, Religion, Social Issues 28 Feb 28, 2014 11:24 PM
RCP: The Gun Debate - What Liberals Leave Out ugahairydawgs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 131 Apr 11, 2013 02:06 PM
GB, the people have spoken,will you PLEASE take Piers Morgan back? glocke12 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 82 Dec 30, 2012 11:37 PM
Piers Morgan on gun crime for CNN Risco Politics, Religion, Social Issues 116 Dec 23, 2012 12:52 PM
Senator Manchin supports gun debate miloblithe Politics, Religion, Social Issues 9 Dec 18, 2012 11:22 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC