- View Single Post - 12 killed and 59 wounded in Denver shooting at a Batman showing
View Single Post
post #91 of (permalink) Old 07-24-2012, 03:14 PM
country flag tripwires
Registered User
tripwires's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 31
Posts: 13,526
Re: 12 killed and 59 wounded in Denver shooting at a Batman showing

Originally Posted by Tommy_Vercetti View Post
And you do understand that that is the entire point of this whole little conversation? The US was the first nation of the modern world to enact such laws. And we had huge influence on creating them elsewhere and still do. That's the ENTIRE POINT.
So? That makes you superior to the UK, Germany, France, even Australia, how, exactly? How does that necessarily make your laws or your protection of those rights superior to the same in those other countries? You're just blowing a smoke screen of jingoistic patriotic nothing here.

And the US has always largely maintained those rights and never had an absolute tyrannical leader or government in large part because the population is not only freedom-loving, but also well-armed. Stripping that right would set a precedent that would undermine everything else. Especially when you are allowing such rights to be dictated by maniacs and the miniscule exceptions to the rule.
Freedom is for everyone...except those poor, inferior blackies. Don't talk like America has a pristine track record in protecting rights, because your history shows that it's not true. You can go on all you want about how white men fought for the liberties of their descendants (white descendants, may I add), but it doesn't erase the glaring gloss on the history of your great nation.

I might have misrepresented myself, but I don't really think that the right to bear arms should be abolished per se. But why can't tighter laws be enacted? Why does a civilian need an assault weapon? How does it make sense that bullets are apparently sold alongside other household items in supermarkets? If a driver of a car needs to be licenced, why shouldn't a holder of a gun be similarly licenced?

Originally Posted by orangehat View Post
trip, having lived in singapore for 13 years and the last year in the states, I can tell you that it is quite different.

Even if guns were banned, the fact is the US as a whole is too big and police response time is inefficient. It's not possible to have constant police patrols in areas, and lights are too cost-inefficient as a whole. As such, it's much more likely for muggings or other stuff. The same for home invasions, if some madman were to come smashing into your house, much less likely for someone to report it or what not. So people like to have arms for self-defense, which is not that ridiculous. Of course, the argument can be made that when guns are allowed, the attackers have guns too, but in self-defense occasions you probably still will have the upper hand.

As such I think it's fair for certain allowances for firearms.
I see your point. I know that Singapore is very different from the US (we owe a lot of our success to the fact that we're so small and thus relatively easy to govern) and believe me, I think it's ludicrous that the death penalty is the legislated punishment for the illegal possession of firearms. Still, I gotta say that I just feel a lot safer living in a country where people who are not trained police officers or military personnels carry guns around, a country where guns are not easily accessible to criminals and crazy people like the Aurora shooter.

That said, I don't disagree that it makes sense at a certain level for homeowners to keep a gun at home for protection; but it seems to me that the situation in America has gotten so out of control that barely anyone is surprised when a mass shooting happens.

What I do not agree with, however, are guns in public areas (like cinemas), or on the roads. Guns should be for self-defense and self-defense only. The argument that someone who had a gun in the cinema would have helped is stupid. Unless you're a military grade sniper or something, you're unlikely to hit your target in such poor visibility. The same goes for any crowded public area, you're only going to make it worse.

What I also don't agree with is the stupid thing that is the NRA and the stupid politicians (mostly republicans) who keep taking donations from that stupid organization. BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS AND BAN WEAPONS WITH LARGE NUMBER OF ROUNDS. That is so freaking instinctive.
I agree. I'm not sure if the Democrats are calling for an outright ban, but surely stricter controls is a reasonable compromise.

Also, the NRA strikes me as a bunch of lunatics. I went to their website for the first time today and was freaked out by the layout.

Roger Federer

Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome