International Gun Ban Treaty

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
There is no way to make sure that a person is going to own a gun "responsibly". People can and do flip out for all sorts of reasons all the time, even apparently stable people. Where I'm from, people get killed by guns in two main ways - 1) professional killers get hired by organized crime to take out someone who's become inconvenient. That's the kind of crime we're not talking about because clearly whoever commits it has the resources to find the guns needed illegally plus it does not target random innocent people (at least most of the time), and 2) police and military officers who have supposedly passed all the psychological tests and checks before they were given the gun who flip out and kill family members, neighbours, other random people - those are exactly the people who are supposed to own guns responsibly, most of the time they do, but "most of the time" is not the same as "all the time"
Im not saying that guns are not inherently dangerous. I'm just saying, I think it is very paternalistic for the government to tell me what is in my best interest. Restrictive laws are in effect because of the lowest common denominator of moron. What about the responsible people? I just think it's bullshit that idiots ruin things for the rest of us. Not to say that a complete lack of restriction is the answer. I'm fine with gun laws the way that they are...but I'd still love to live in a society where people can act responsibly and not need Uncle Sam to babysit their actions. I regulate my own actions, and I'd continue to do so regardless of the laws. I own a gun because shooting a gun is fucking awesome. I have no intention of killing anyone anytime soon.

Anyways...you mentioned that the two main killings around your area are basically cops and assassins. I'd love to see a statistic showing that professional assassins are responsible for more gun related murders than "unorganized" street violence. Unless you live in or near Mexico or El Salvador.
 

Nuttkase

not nolettuce
Jun 5, 2002
38,746
159,554
113
44
at the welfare mall
I'm for the right to bear arms (legally of course) and I'm on the fence with things like assault rifles. I am also for a stricter process when buying a gun or obtaining ammo. Most of all I'm for very strict punishment when it comes to people using guns when commiting a crime. Use a gun during a crime, no matter what it is, 10 years in prison and no early release added to whatever the actual crime sentence is. Caught with an illegal gun, the same. Don't like that then don't use a gun if you are going to commit a crime or obtain one illegally unless you are willing to sit down for a decade if you get caught.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Im not saying that guns are not inherently dangerous. I'm just saying, I think it is very paternalistic for the government to tell me what is in my best interest. Restrictive laws are in effect because of the lowest common denominator of moron. What about the responsible people? I just think it's bullshit that idiots ruin things for the rest of us. Not to say that a complete lack of restriction is the answer. I'm fine with gun laws the way that they are...but I'd still love to live in a society where people can act responsibly and not need Uncle Sam to babysit their actions. I regulate my own actions, and I'd continue to do so regardless of the laws. I own a gun because shooting a gun is fucking awesome. I have no intention of killing anyone anytime soon.
But again, how can you make sure that someone with a gun is going to act responsibly? It's impossible.
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
But again, how can you make sure that someone with a gun is going to act responsibly? It's impossible.
But again, I'm not saying there is a way to make sure. I'm just saying it would be nice to let responsible people make their own decisions. Regulating guns might lower the incident of gun violence (if regulation was effective), but it doesn't change the underlying problem that we currently live in a society where human life is devalued, we have no sense of community, tons of senseless murders, and our fair share of serial killers. I feel like this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Regulating guns treats the symptoms of the problem, but not the actual problem. Let's get a sense of community back and love our neighbors and all that fun happy shit.
 
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
But again, how can you make sure that someone with a gun is going to act responsibly? It's impossible.
well in other countries, they issue you a gun when you turn the correct age. everyone in those countries most likely have guns. therefor no one goes to rob a store because everyone inside has guns.... no one does home invasions, because the people they are invading, all have guns. its checks and balances with firepower, and the gun crimes in those countries are insanely low... look into it
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
I guess to highlight that point, compare the US with Japan. In the US, after Hurricane Katrina, there was massive looting, sniper fire at rescue helicopters, theft/rape/murder in the Superdome, gang violence, armed robbery, etc. There was no sense of community. Then in Japan when the tsunami came, there were tons of reports that refugees were finding money that didn't belong to them and turning the money over to the authorities because its the right thing to do. Very similar circumstances, but very different results. That's the type of thing we need to fix. If we just make more gun laws, it's not gonna fix crazy.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
Restrictive laws are in effect because of the lowest common denominator of moron.


Our society is built around the lowest common denominator, and our "progression" is in the same direction.


I wonder what kind of students schools would turn out if they all based their curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?

ThaG where do you go to school? Do you think your school should be basing it's curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?
 

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
Our society is built around the lowest common denominator, and our "progression" is in the same direction.


I wonder what kind of students schools would turn out if they all based their curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?

ThaG where do you go to school? Do you think your school should be basing it's curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?
Apparently this is basically what the No Child Left Behind law did to schools. From most teachers I've talked to, it's basically ruining education.
 
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
Our society is built around the lowest common denominator, and our "progression" is in the same direction.


I wonder what kind of students schools would turn out if they all based their curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?

ThaG where do you go to school? Do you think your school should be basing it's curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?
to speak on schools a bit, let me start with this. im not the smartest person ive come across, but im fairly intelligent. i failed math after getting a 98% on the final (second highest in class) due to the fact i made some dumb decisions in my first two years, which forced me to take 8 classes in my junior and senior year just to catch up. so basically i didnt do most of the homework but still understood it all and scored well. as a result of this failed grade in math, i didnt graduate with my class. i had to go to an adult education center and spend 6 weeks getting the math credit on a computer. now lets look at the other side of the spectrum. i knew a student by the name of rhett evans. he did his work every day, showed up on time, turned everything in on time. the catch is, he got horrible grades on what he did turn in, and got barely passing,or sometimes failing grades on tests. im not exaggerating when i tell you that he could not read the word "technology". however, since he tried, and turned everything in, they passed him in everything, and he graduated on time. this is the best example i have as to how the school system makes no sense, though im sure there are many more. curriculum is getting harder, but there is more of it packed into a year, which means less time spent on it, so the student doesnt actually learn most or whats being taught, and if they do, they forget it almost instantly.
 
May 4, 2005
3,544
1,180
113
37
http://www.examiner.com/article/investigators-expose-gun-control-un-small-arms-treaty

A team of investigative reporters for Ammoland on Tuesday exposed previously unpublished documents showing that the controversial U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), also known as the "small arms treaty," includes gun control for private "small arms and light weapons" as U.S. gun owners feared.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been negotiating the treaty at the United Nations on behalf of the Obama administration.

Clinton had assured the public that the treaty would include language prohibiting the treaty from mandating restrictions on U.S. gun sales. But the documents uncovered by Ammoland indicate otherwise.

At issue is a section of the treaty titled "Scope." In a list under the main section, the treaty states that "covered items" include "small arms and light weapons." This section of the original document can be found here.

A statement follows the description of the scope which mandates that each member state (nations) develop a "national control list" that includes the items cited in the list in the main section denoting covered items:


Each State Party shall define on a national basis the above items, taking into account descriptions in relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall establish, publish and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above.

The Ammoland report further states that each nation that signs the treaty will track all weapons movements from the time they are manufactured until their destruction.

ATT has been controversial from the start. Gun rights activists say that the treaty is an attempt by the Obama Administration to implement gun control without having to go through Congress to do so. Fifty-eight senators, including 13 Democrats, have signed a letter in opposition to the treaty.

The treaty also restricts the ability of nations such as the United States to help arm its allies, such as Israel and Taiwan, which are under increasing attack from aggressive neighboring states.

Thus, even if the wording of ATT is changed to delete the section on small arms, critics still have a problem with the treaty due to its mandate to hamstring nations in their attempt to help allies who face increasing danger of attack.

Hillary Clinton has urged President Obama to sign the treaty, and the White House has stated that he plans to do so, as early as Friday of this week.

However, the Senate will need 67 votes to approve ATT. At present the treaty has far from the necessary votes to pass.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
It seems to me that people are misinformed when it comes to the right to bear arms. This right doesn't exist to shoot people who walk onto your property...it exists to protect the people from tyranny. If the right to bear arms is removed and people no longer have the right to own or carry a firearm, they are easier to control without revolt.

As it turned out, guns are also a good tool for protection from the everyday asshole. If every person who owned a gun legally could pack it legally, criminals would think twice before doing something stupid...because they know they might get their heads blown off. If that James Holmes kid knew pulling a weapon in a packed movie theater could result in him turning into Swiss Cheese, he may not have had the balls to do what he did. Crimes are committed by many folks who own guns illegally, so making certain guns illegal (as some of them are) will do nothing. Can you own a fully automatic AK-47 in California? I don't think so...but people still get 'em.

People in Switzerland are trained to use guns, they own guns, and their violent crime rate involving guns is extremely low. The government needs to start letting law abiding citizens pack...period.
 

SLICC RICC

Encapuchado
Jan 4, 2005
5,694
78
0
44
WHAT WOULD BE THE WORSE TO HAPPEN IF THIS TREATY WERE ENACTED??? WOULD THERE BE MILITARY GOIN DOOR TO DOOR TO CONFISCATE EVERY REGISTERED FIREARM IN THIS COUNTRY??? THAT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL TASK IF YOU ASK ME, SEEING AS 90% OF THE PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE HOSTILE AS FUCK TO ANYONE COMING TO TAKE THEIR SHIT...
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
I guess to highlight that point, compare the US with Japan. In the US, after Hurricane Katrina, there was massive looting, sniper fire at rescue helicopters, theft/rape/murder in the Superdome, gang violence, armed robbery, etc. There was no sense of community. Then in Japan when the tsunami came, there were tons of reports that refugees were finding money that didn't belong to them and turning the money over to the authorities because its the right thing to do. Very similar circumstances, but very different results. That's the type of thing we need to fix. If we just make more gun laws, it's not gonna fix crazy.
Yes, that's correct, Japan and the US are very different societies. But the point that you are missing is that gun laws and social coherence are not at all independent things. The US developed as a frontier society, with not much social cohesion as it was all sorts of different ethnic groups pouring in from the other side of the ocean. Japan is a one of the most ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in the world with a very long and deep cultural tradition of subjugating individual interests to the common good.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Our society is built around the lowest common denominator, and our "progression" is in the same direction.


I wonder what kind of students schools would turn out if they all based their curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?

ThaG where do you go to school? Do you think your school should be basing it's curriculum on the lowest common denominator in our society?
I don't go to school anymore.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
I don't go to school anymore.


Pretend you are back in school and answer the question. My understanding is that you went to a good school that bases its curriculum on a more intelligent segment of the population, yet you seem to argue that society should function differently. I don't see why that is.

A school targeting the lowest common denominator restricts those who are at a higher percentile intellectually. The same is true for society.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
Pretend you are back in school and answer the question. My understanding is that you went to a good school that bases its curriculum on a more intelligent segment of the population, yet you seem to argue that society should function differently. I don't see why that is.

A school targeting the lowest common denominator restricts those who are at a higher percentile intellectually. The same is true for society.
I don't understand where your question comes from and how it fits with my views - I have always maintained that there should be no "elite" schools where "elite" is defined as much better than the average, but not for the reasons that immediately comes to mind to most people (regression to the lowest common denominator) but exactly the opposite - all schools raise their standards to a level higher (much higher) than that of the best schools that currently exist. Because even the best schools don't do a very good job at educating their students - Harvard, for example, is a complete joke when it comes to education quality, and yes, I say it as someone who is an alumni of the rival institution nearby so I am somewaht biased, but that rival institution is not doing the best posible job either, despite its reputation