Question for people Pro-guns....
- Thread starter Moth_Monk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, the earth will not "Recover no matter what we do" and that's the whole smegging point of what i've been rambling on about. Why don't you take an A-level or equivilant in Biology so you can wise up. You shouldn't need to go as far as degree level to realise your mistake.
OK, I'm ambivalent about gun control. I was mostly just reading this thread out of boredom, but I have to comment here.yeti585 said:
Please, please, PLEASE, stop using this argument to support the second amendment. That rationale ceased to carry any weight about 100 years ago. Back when that amendment was written it was entirely possible for any civilian to have weapons equal to what the military had (barring cannons). It meant that an armed populace could potentially stand up to military force. Not likely but possible.
Today's military has the civilian sector so out gunned it's not even worth commenting on. That 30-06 in your gun case isn't going to do a damn thing if they drop a cruise missile in your living room, and it certainly isn't going to penetrate any armored vehicles should they decide to waltz down your street.
There are plenty of arguably good reasons to support the right to bear arms, so please stop using the one that ceased to be true a century ago.
Buretsu - I didnt mean to imply that guns would spell the end for us all, nothing that dramatic - far more dangerous is the assumption that we can piss on the planet and it's systems for as long as we want without consequences, it may not be as sudden as nuclear war but the effects are just as bad. Also the cause of crime is not, and i never said it was, guns. It's overpopulation and uneven distribution of wealth that causes a defecit in resources which creates conflict. That and a host of socio-economic problems which stem, mainly, from overpopulation. And if guns are "the best tool for perpetrating violence" then that surely is a reason to -you know- stop making them.
It's objective to talk about humans as if i was not one, to view both humans and pigs as merely species inhabiting earth. Far less subjective than the view that "humans are the highest form of life on earth".
About that, let me point out that there are more bacteria in a human body than there are cells in a human body - true a bacteria can't paint a picture or invent democracy but there's no denying that in terms of both 1: time of existance on earth and 2: number of individuals then bacteria, what you would probably call the "lowest" life form, is kicking our ass.
And yes, we invented some tools - i think in the grand scheme of things that ammounts to bugger-all. Like i said, they only really served to disrupt a delicate balance that took around 4bn years to set up.
It's objective to talk about humans as if i was not one, to view both humans and pigs as merely species inhabiting earth. Far less subjective than the view that "humans are the highest form of life on earth".
About that, let me point out that there are more bacteria in a human body than there are cells in a human body - true a bacteria can't paint a picture or invent democracy but there's no denying that in terms of both 1: time of existance on earth and 2: number of individuals then bacteria, what you would probably call the "lowest" life form, is kicking our ass.
And yes, we invented some tools - i think in the grand scheme of things that ammounts to bugger-all. Like i said, they only really served to disrupt a delicate balance that took around 4bn years to set up.
OK, I'm staying out of the rest of this fight, but I want you to think really hard about this sentence and come back once you realize the problem.FireDr@gon said:
*hint*
ob·jec·tive
adj
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice
Buretsu - It's funny because i was talking about this just yesterday - how "humans have technically done chickens a favour because there would be far less of them around without us" and i'm willing to concede that point. However, that doesn't stop the fact that breeding, say, cows to excess is going to help anything in the long run. In fact massive swathes of life are being destroyed to support two species, cows and people. If biology has taught me anything it's that in order to have a healthy ecosystem you need bio-diversity, and humans really don't leave alot of room for that now and especially not if trends continue. Unfortunately, the kind of damage which humans are causing are not easily bounced back from. The effect that humans are having is prolonged, accelerating and irreversible, with permanent consequences. You can't un-burn a match, it's like that.
Measuring an organisms' success is tricky but i feel that time of existence and number of individuals are pretty much the only important factors. When people have existed for a hundred million years or so without cocking everything up then they might be worthy of such a grand title as "highest life form". For now i think "Life form that shows promise" is far more realistic. What measures of success would you say are important?
Krantos - I know what objective means, and because i said "my veiws are in the minority" does not make my points come from a subjective stand point. My objective statement about people and pigs is that they are both species that inhabit earth. My subjective points or "my views" are anti gun, pro bio-diversity. Also you need to learn the difference between a discussion or debate and a fight.
Measuring an organisms' success is tricky but i feel that time of existence and number of individuals are pretty much the only important factors. When people have existed for a hundred million years or so without cocking everything up then they might be worthy of such a grand title as "highest life form". For now i think "Life form that shows promise" is far more realistic. What measures of success would you say are important?
Krantos - I know what objective means, and because i said "my veiws are in the minority" does not make my points come from a subjective stand point. My objective statement about people and pigs is that they are both species that inhabit earth. My subjective points or "my views" are anti gun, pro bio-diversity. Also you need to learn the difference between a discussion or debate and a fight.
Whilst I find your concern for the environment and animals admirable, we need to clear something up.FireDr@gon said:
Pigs in Australia (and I believe the US also) are an introduced species. You're correct that we need to take care to not completely fuck up the natural order of things, unfortunately we already did that when we took pigs from one country and allowed them to establish themselves in another.
In Australia at least, if we were to let wild pigs go without any form of hunting or control, then the native species of animals are going to suffer greatly for it.
Its also not exclusive to introduced species. Kangaroos are considered a pest in some parts of Australia. Not simply because we don't want them around, but because they are thriving beyond the land's ability to sustain them, alongside other natives.
The effect these animals have on humans is also a valid issue. You are clearly of the impression that a human life and an animal life are on near equal footing, which is fine. However acknowledging that we are just smart animals means acknowledging that we have the same rights as other animals, to establish and maintain territory and have a primary concern for our own species.
Our higher intellect does mean we have an increased responsibility of course. It means we have to know when and where to stop. If culling of a creature is required, for its own good, our own good and the good of other native wildlife, then it should be done as humanely as possible with great care taken to ensure that a sustainable population remains.
Oh? Funny, there's been how many extinction level events this little ball has bounced back from? And excuse my oh-so-unlearned-ignorance, but didn't this planet start out as a lifeless rock?FireDr@gon said:
I think the globe can stand a couple pigs dying in Texas.
Sheesh-to hear you tell it- with all the volcanic eruptions, forest fires, asteroids, ice ages, disease, and insect plagues this planet should have withered into a dead husk with no help from us.
But enough with the hyperbolic doomsaying, as it distracts from the topic. Wild Pigs need to be hunted. Why? Because we need to eat. Can the human population stand some reduction itself? Sure. But that doesn't happen overnight. Does agriculture need to enter a modernization phase and perhaps employ the same advantages tall buildings had offered urban development? Sure. But that doesn't happen overnight.
Know what does happen overnight? Culling a few hundred head of boar.
See, if you don't solve the short-term problem, you won't be around to solve the long-term problem. I am not at all opposed to better population, agricultural, and environmental policies; but you can't see what your stepping in when you've got your head in the clouds.
Yes it will. If we abuse the environment too much then humanity will die out, that much is a given, but once we were gone the Earth would replenish itself. The Earth is a living organism, its biological functions allow it to restore itself given time. Humanity needs to be in harmony with nature in order to survive on this planet, we need to let the Earth go along its natural cycles otherwise it will come back to haunt us and we won't survive the aftermath.FireDr@gon said:
Ever watched Life After People? It was a stunning program of what the Earth would do if the human race disappeared, the Earth took over and destroyed all of our artificial creations like skyscrapers and electronics. The forests will come back, the pollution will disappear, radiation will fade away, and where cities use to be will be overtaken by plants eroding away at them. The Earth is here to stay, we need to respect the Earth or we won't be the same.
The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.spartan231490 said:
The fact of the matter remains that when a species, no matter how "cute" it might be, has no natural predators and an ample food supply, it will breed itself into starvation.FireDr@gon said:
We're the apex predator of the planet. It's our freakin' job, in the oh-so-delicate circle of life, to shoot and eat the damn pigs. And the deer. And the cows. And the chickens. And pretty much all of the animals.
Because I have no interest in reintroducing wolves and mountain lions and coming home one day to find my children have been eaten.
If the blade is serrated it is definitely going to be painful, but if you are skilled with knife fighting getting stabbed wont be a problem, Learn to fight with something like a balisong (butterfly knife) or a trench knife and you can set the standard not to be fucked with.Ryotknife said:
Actually the MAC-10 is closer to 1,000 rounds per minute.Dan Steele said:
The thing is, civilians that want to legally obtain a weapon like that have to jump through a variety of hoops, since they fall into a very specific set of conditions to own, as established by the National Firearms Act.
Title II weapons (which includes pretty much anything that can fire automatically) have to be transferable in order to be sold to a civilian.
What does that mean? Well, for one it means the weapon is registered with the BATF. For another, it means that the weapon had to be manufactured and registered before 1986.
Now, once you've found a weapon like that, which will frequently go for ten to twenty times its hypothetical retail price for a new model, you have to get approval from the ATF, your local sheriff, submit to an extensive background check, and pay a fairly significant tax for the privilege.
And that's assuming you don't live in a state that forbids Title II weapons period.
So what you wind up with is a weapon that is linked to you almost inextricably, that cost you probably more than ten thousand dollars to obtain, that can land you in jail if you do the slightest thing wrong with it, and you had to get permission from law enforcement in order to own it.
Needless to say, NFA-registered weapons are extraordinarily rarely used for crime. To be honest, I can't recall ever actually reading about one being used by its owner for anything other than recreational shooting. They get stolen, of course, but that brings us back to the core problem with gun control laws.
Criminals don't give a fuck about gun control laws. That's one of the things that makes them criminals.
Well, I look at it as being attuned to the history of America's revolutionary roots, and you're not going to see any kind of revolution by throwing rocks. It's tied to what we feel is our birthright to be armed to not only protect ourselves from other armed cretins, but from our own government. Kind of ass-backwards, but you all damned-well know how screwy our entire history of government relations has been since our inception.
I say it's a good thing, because there needs to be an example of it in use so that other countries can make up their mind of the subject with a serious case study of how we've done it. With all the other countries in existence where they tote fully-automatic weapons down the street at one end of the spectrum, we are kind of in the middle between them and the unarmed ones. It's interesting, to say the least.
I say it's a good thing, because there needs to be an example of it in use so that other countries can make up their mind of the subject with a serious case study of how we've done it. With all the other countries in existence where they tote fully-automatic weapons down the street at one end of the spectrum, we are kind of in the middle between them and the unarmed ones. It's interesting, to say the least.
The data doesn't speak for itself at all, homicide is not murder under UK law. With no way of telling which of those unlawful deaths in the graph where actually murder its irrelevant as a source about murder rates.Raesvelg said:
I am not even saying you are wrong either, all I am saying is you cannot draw a conclusion from inaccurate data and present it as a fact.
spartan231490 said:
There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).
Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.
As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.