-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Offical Thread of Slippery Slope Arguments
- Thread starter Nicodimas
- Start date
- Status
Gaborn said:
I've been to the trials of two people accused of killing my siblings. Both by gun fire. One (older) brother was shot by an individual 'protecting his home', my brother was running for his life and used the guys backyard as refuge. My (younger) infant brother was killed by a ricocheting bullet from a drive by shooting.
.There are countries with and without firearm restrictions that have low crime rates.
Do firearm restrictions help? To a certain degree, yes. Will it eliminate all gun crime? Of course not.
The world is not black and white, people.
edit: PS. The old assault rifle ban was pointless anyway, since the firearm can be easily modded back to automatic mode.
Do firearm restrictions help? To a certain degree, yes. Will it eliminate all gun crime? Of course not.
The world is not black and white, people.
edit: PS. The old assault rifle ban was pointless anyway, since the firearm can be easily modded back to automatic mode.
i'm going to bed guys. try not to slam me too much more while i'm gone than you're doing now. if there's legit arguments tomorrow i'll pick up the ball but if it's just more of wickedangel spazzing and calling me the worlds biggest retard, well, you guys can continue among yourselves.
(not that I think we're treading any new ground at this point.)
(not that I think we're treading any new ground at this point.)
So just so I understand correctly, that you want every private citizen who was saved by a gun dead as well correct? You'll trade the lives of the innocents who didn't have guns for the lives of the innocents who did? That's what's being said here correct?whytemyke said:
Truth be told that again this discussion is stupid.
1) Banning assault weapons over handguns and shotguns is retarded and not going to save anyone, so all you're doing is harassing enthusiasts. Unlike some of my more enthusiastic friends here I'd be willing to give you this hollow victory if it means you'll get off my nuts about guns.
2) The discussion again, shouldn't be about guns at all it should be about how to reduce crime, full stop, period, end of discussion whatever. If you ban guns all you do is deny a persons right to defend him/herself and trade some innocents for a different set of innocents so you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Lets step away from the side issue here and talk about what really needs to be done which is invest money and effort into a police force who's actual task is to protect and serve as opposed to collect and ticket.
mAcOdIn said:
I think the way around it is that you no longer legally buy an AK-47. Here in NY the Assault Weapons Ban from before is still active, so when I recently bought that type of rifle, it was designated by the seller (and on my receipt) as an AKM type rifle.
But yeah, now I want to horde money to buy the Glock and PS90 I've had my eye on for awhile ASAP.
This thread is hardly worth addressing since it only breaks down into the same groups, but a few points:
1. Comparing cars to guns is a piss poor analogy. It was when Nicodimas last brought up this tired topic ages ago, and it still is. They don't compare; nor do guns and aircraft carriers, or whatever other ridiculous analogies were made in this thread.
2. There really aren't any legitimate reasons for a civilian to own an assault weapon, save for, arguably, hunting and recreation. However, I suspect that such a ban would affect a relatively small portion of hunters at worst, if any. The most popular animals that are hunted aren't killed with assault weapons.
3. Some people don't seem to really understand what a "slippery slope argument" is. Banning assault weapons doesn't automatically equate to us going down a slippery slope insofar as its proponents adequately establish the reasons in a relevant and logical manner.
4. This is effectively a wedge issue that doesn't really need to be brought up by and large, certainly not at this point. As others have pointed out, most murders are done with basic guns.
1. Comparing cars to guns is a piss poor analogy. It was when Nicodimas last brought up this tired topic ages ago, and it still is. They don't compare; nor do guns and aircraft carriers, or whatever other ridiculous analogies were made in this thread.
2. There really aren't any legitimate reasons for a civilian to own an assault weapon, save for, arguably, hunting and recreation. However, I suspect that such a ban would affect a relatively small portion of hunters at worst, if any. The most popular animals that are hunted aren't killed with assault weapons.
3. Some people don't seem to really understand what a "slippery slope argument" is. Banning assault weapons doesn't automatically equate to us going down a slippery slope insofar as its proponents adequately establish the reasons in a relevant and logical manner.
4. This is effectively a wedge issue that doesn't really need to be brought up by and large, certainly not at this point. As others have pointed out, most murders are done with basic guns.
WickedAngel
Banned
harSon said:
I believe that the use of a firearm against your brother was likely illegal and we're discussing legal gun ownership here.
As far as your younger brother, I truly am sorry. The event poses some questions, though. Do you honestly believe that people who are willing to open fire in residential neighborhood will be swayed by a crime against ownership? Do you honestly believe that the police would have been able to make a difference in situations like that even if a widespread ban on guns was implemented?
mAcOdIn said:
You're hammering on a concrete wall there. Anti-gun proponents will never acknowledge that defensive gun uses outnumber gun crimes by a significant margin.
WickedAngel
Banned
SRG01 said:
There are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of guns in the United States. How many gun crimes are there per year? Tens of thousands? Percentages won't really be flattering to this approach of argument against civilian gun ownership.
The 2nd amendment is a fucking joke for two reasons:
1. the same people who argue for the right to bear arms are usually the most likely to put potentially oppressive administrations in office (i.e. Bush & Co)
2. The chances of local gun owners with their silly ass scoped M14's and AK47's standing a chance against M1 Abrams MBTs or A-10s is minuscule to nonexistent.
1. the same people who argue for the right to bear arms are usually the most likely to put potentially oppressive administrations in office (i.e. Bush & Co)
2. The chances of local gun owners with their silly ass scoped M14's and AK47's standing a chance against M1 Abrams MBTs or A-10s is minuscule to nonexistent.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
Bravo on the title change.
WickedAngel
Banned
How awesome; some douchebag mod thought it would be funny to overlay their personal opinions on a thread title instead of coming in here to make some actual arguments.
I don't give a shit if I get banned for calling whoever it was a douchebag, either. Your abuse of your power doesn't discredit valid arguments and is a pretty cowardly way to slant discussion in your favor.
I don't give a shit if I get banned for calling whoever it was a douchebag, either. Your abuse of your power doesn't discredit valid arguments and is a pretty cowardly way to slant discussion in your favor.
MightyHedgehog
Member
So, we should just let everyone have any type of weapon because some people break the law to obtain them for unlawful conduct? Are we then allowing the criminal element to dictate what we should be able to use? Or should there just not be any regulation whatsoever?Xeke said:
Born and raised. I'm pretty sure of what my rights are as a citizen. We can bear arms. That's about the extent of what our rights are with weapons as far as the Constitution is concerned. The rest is up to the lawmakers and courts to decide. Are you American? Because I would think that you shouldn't be asking that kind of question unless you're ignorant.Gaborn said:
Cars are transportation. Guns are for shooting. Clearly, there's a big difference there regardless of what gets done with them by the individual. The economy isn't propped up by civilian ownership and use of guns. Using your logic, yes, cars could be banned because our ownership of them isn't explicitly granted by the Constitution, right? I would think that the vast majority of automobile-related deaths are not intentional nor are they used to threaten people for some criminal purpose.Xeke said:
Perhaps... Once they're legal, I have no doubt that it will change.WickedAngel said:
Yes, but not any gun that you want.Zeke said:
WickedAngel
Banned
Kapsama said:
You do realize that we're neck deep in an insurgency that has showed little to no sign of backing down in spite of the fact that they're fighting the most powerful military in the world, right? We're talking about an insurgency that is comprised of members who have relatively primitive formal education and have been most successful with the utilization of improvised explosive devices.
Our military is having issues with occupying Iraq and fighting a force of tens of thousands. When you talk about an occupation force that is fighting an insurgency, the amount of technology you have and the size of your tanks is irrelevant.
We couldn't do it in Vietnam, the Russians couldn't do it in Afghanistan, we can't do it in Afghanistan/Iraq, and this hypothetical anti-right government couldn't do it against the US population.
*Edit*
And for the record, this isn't why I (Or most people) own guns anyways. I'm only addressing it because you brought it up.
I mean the type that thinks the police will be there to help as soon as you call them. Sadly they won't by the time the police make their way to you the crime will be done and over. The chance of a police officer being around the corner from you is slim to none their response times are awful.Kapsama said:
Don't agree with Bush and co on most domestic issues.Kapsama said:
But what are the chances of someone with a scoped M-14 taking out the driver of a parked Bradley at Fort Benning, or a parked A-10 at Pope Air Force Base? Or are these guys living and sleeping in their vehicles? You'd be a fool to take on an A-10 in the sky, but you'd be an even bigger fool to think that an A-10 stationed on American soil, at an American base, next to an American town, can't be rendered useless while on the ground.Kapsama said:
Funny thing about our military is, if you look at how the bases are deployed there really is no intelligent way to defend them. Especially the Air Force bases in BFE. Just how many MP's do you think the Air Force has? America could completely cripple the Air Force. The planes are useless when grounded. So they can refuel in flight, but they have to land to rearm, pilots have to sleep, maintenance has to be done, all of that is on the ground on a poorly defended Air Force base. And if you look at who builds those planes and helicopters and their respective parts, you'd find them even more poorly defended. Only branches of consequence in a rebellion would be the Navy, Marines and the Army.
You can actually disable pretty much any land based vehicle with supplies purchased at any local farm equipment store, although no you won't be able to punch holes in it's armor, but hey if you get them all stuck what good are they? Make them get out of their armor and fight them with a more even footing and the civilian population stands a much better chance.
I'm a pretty big proponent of the second amendment, but I guess the problem is that it just says right to bear arms. Does this mean that it should be legal for civilians to own bombs? What about chemical weapons? No matter what, the government is going to have to restrict what arms a person can bear. It's just a question of how restricting.
WickedAngel
Banned
Xeke said:
Can I keep my suitcase nuke?
The ultimate answer to home defense.
WickedAngel
Banned
mAcOdIn said:
Our new line of home defense weapons inspired by Predator.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
all i'm going to say is that we got some sick fuckers in this country.
I dont know why people do this to argument. Arms are not satelittles, battleships, tanks, or bombs. Please use some common sense in this argument. Something you can carry..
Gotta love the mods trying to make this thread going away by changing its name...quite lame. Completely changing its meaning... Guess we know where they stand.
Xeke said:
I did not say every. The fact that you even had to point out that you're a hardcore liberal living in rural Pennsylvania proves my point.
WickedAngel said:
Ok first of all the initial resistance was mostly ex-Republican Guard. Those people are not anything like Joe Sixpack and his assault rifle. They were the elites of Iraq.
Your comparison to Vietnam and Afghanistan are also faulty because each of these conflicts were proxy battles by much greater powers behind the little countries you were actually fighting. And last I checked the Vietcong wasn't all that successful, it was the regular soldiers from the North who amounted to anything. Russia or China delivering supplies into the heartland of the US during such an internal conflict is highly unlikely.
As for your edit, but why do you need assault rifles then? You're already allowed to carry handguns and shotguns. What is it that you need AK47s for?
mAcOdIn said:
Ok first of all you're making a lot of assumptions. Who says the population will even collaborate in any effort against the government? The brainwashed masses of America would be just as likely to turn off Fox News and read history books, i.e. very slim chances.
And if crippling armored American vehicles is so easy, why isn't this being done in Iraq at the moment? I hear of plenty of blown up Humvees and trucks but I've yet to hear of a group of tanks being ambushed and crippled. Unless the Army hides these events that is?
Here is one to chew on, people cry for us to get out of Iraq due to the loss of lives, most specifically the younger teenaged troops, yet more lives are lost in a single month among that age group due to alcohol than have died in Iraq total. In all, close to 100,000 deaths a year are related to alcohol, maybe we need to pull out of allowing the use of alcohol.
The USAF has no MPS, we have SFs, which I am myself. As to numbers, we are the largest group in the USAF and there is close to 50,000 of us and then we are agumented by close to 30,000 other USAF personal who are trained in our duties. As to getting on a USAF base, it would actually be quite tough, an active Airfield even tougher because dependent on the base, its mission, and its piority, you can have anywhere from 4-30 SF response members active on a field and their SOPS are simple, remove any threat to aircraft in the quickest manner possible to include Deadly Force if the perp refuses to obey. Going onto an USAF airfield with out proper authorization, is a really good way to get fucked up. We also have detailed contigency plans in place that allow us to completely fortify our bases with mere hours, two hours after 911 and we went into FPCOM Delta, USAF bases both here and around the World were basically impentratible.
Also you give for less credit to the USAf than you do the other branches, and without reason. First off, the USAF is in Iraq just like the other branches and has boots on the ground there in combat roles, for us SFs, we receive Infantry training at army bases and are profecient in every weapon used in the US Military system. So an Armed rebellion trying to get on an USAF base would face a group of people with over five years of combat experiance who have a vast store of both small arms like the M-4 as well as larger weapons like the MK-19 and 50 cal at their disposal and a large fleet of armoured vehicles that would stop most weapons that civs could field, when they tried to attack an USAF base they would find that a large group of battle ready troops itching to kill something and with weapons to do it faced them. Talk about your rock and a hard place. Better yet, the more BFE the base is in, the more personel, weapons, and Armoured units it has, because most BFE bases are Nuke bases.
Also you give for less credit to the USAf than you do the other branches, and without reason. First off, the USAF is in Iraq just like the other branches and has boots on the ground there in combat roles, for us SFs, we receive Infantry training at army bases and are profecient in every weapon used in the US Military system. So an Armed rebellion trying to get on an USAF base would face a group of people with over five years of combat experiance who have a vast store of both small arms like the M-4 as well as larger weapons like the MK-19 and 50 cal at their disposal and a large fleet of armoured vehicles that would stop most weapons that civs could field, when they tried to attack an USAF base they would find that a large group of battle ready troops itching to kill something and with weapons to do it faced them. Talk about your rock and a hard place. Better yet, the more BFE the base is in, the more personel, weapons, and Armoured units it has, because most BFE bases are Nuke bases.
I don't think its dumb, I am sick of hearing about how we need to get our troops home out of harms way, when the truth is, that those some troops are in much worse danger in our own country due to alcohol, inner city violence, etc than they are in Iraq. I have been to Iraq, I feel safer there than I do walking down the streets of my own hometown of New orleans. the Average US citizen faces more danger on a daily bases in their own neighborhood, than the average soldier does in Iraq, that is fact.
WickedAngel
Banned
Kapsama said:
Please. The Republican Guard hasn't been a factor since the first two months of the war. You do realize how long we've been in Iraq, right?
Russia and China wouldn't need to deliver supplies to the United States in order to fuel a successful insurgency and neither would any other country. Even if only 1% of the American population fought, it would be 3 million insurgents against a fighting force of 1,422,967 active duty soldiers (Most of which are common people who don't even want to be fighting in Iraq, let alone against their own people). Mutiny would be an everyday occurrence.
Have you not been paying attention to the Iraq war? IEDs are pretty much a daily occurrence; they're not all meant to cripple vehicles. You don't have to destroy a vehicle to kill the people inside and peppering a vehicle with shrapnel is just as effective as destroying the tracks themselves. Tanks aren't used in patrols; Bradley assault vehicles and Humvees are used in patrols. That is why you never hear of an M1A1 being disabled.
You seem to have wholly glossed over the argument about the weak defenses of bases (Which is valid to anyone who has actually seen them). You're still thinking of this as if the hypothetical insurgency would make it self an open target on a battlefield somewhere.
scorcho said:
Context; use it.
no it doesn't as the 2nd amendment only relates to the right to bear arms as it relates to regulating a militia.JayDubya said:
if anything this seems to me, at least, to indicate a swiss system-- everyone gets an automatic rifle in their home after they're done with their military service.
As a real army maybe. But contrary to what American TV would have you believe insurgents aren't all international invaders coming from Yemen to make the life of Iraqis harder.WickedAngel said:
Right, I'm sure American soldiers will magically do the right thing as opposed to what they get drilled into their heads daily.
Really? So when I see tanks on the news or Youtube, what is their function in that situation?
Well I'm hardly an expert on Military Installations in the US, but I highly doubt that what you're saying is true. In fact methos75 addressed your claim in a separate post.
MightyHedgehog said:
Yes, I am an American born and raised. And I'd think you'd understand why i asked by your answer and the post I was responding to. You seem to have a very European view of rights, and most European countries don't recognize a right to bear arms. It sounded like you were arguing that gun owners shouldn't have their guns and weren't being treated unfairly by laws like these.
Methos - You're simply wrong. For one thing, most soldiers don't necessarily live in innercities like you're talking about.
WickedAngel
Banned
Kapsama said:
I have to reiterate; what does it matter? It isn't particularly hard to build a crude explosive and fill it with nails. People don't do it because it's illegal and they don't want to face prosecution but that isn't an issue in this hypothetical. People with even a low understanding of electronics and chemistry can do these things (And for the record, I do not suggest anyone actually do these things; we're talking hypotheticals here, people).
If you don't think American soldiers would mutiny over attacking their homeland, you don't know American soldiers. Depression and suicides are becoming an increasingly large factor in Iraq/Afghanistan and the people they're attacking aren't even people that they can remotely relate to (Entirely different style of living, culture, food, ideals, and religion). Desertion is high as well.
Tanks seem to be an integral part of the big operations (When they're taking on an entire city such as the battle of Fallujah). They're not practical for daily patrols.
methos75 also mentioned that he's SF himself. It wouldn't look flattering if he came in here and said that a civilian insurgency could steamroll him and his comrades. He's not the only person on GAF that has lived on base. In most cases, fences and woods are the only things between civilian roads and base housing. If a civilian insurgency were to rush a gate, then yes...they would be slaughtered within minutes. I think people would have a little more sense than that, though.
WickedAngel said:
The real issue is that A soldier/airman/Marine/etc would be more apt to kill others and himself possibly die in the process of defending his or her base and there fore Family and Friends, than a civ would be rushing to meet his death trying to take over a base that would give him no real gain. And you mentioned base housing, so are you implying that attacking base personals Families, wifes, kids, etc would be an possible venture? Yes that will get the troops on your side. You no that, and every US troop in the World would be itching to crush you. Your giving the Soldier has something plausible to fight for, a Civ taking place in a rebillion not so much. What gain would they get, none really, because weapons and such are secured in locations that would give little chance of a armed rebillion being able to access them. As far as Planes go, most would be in the air within minutes of any rebellion trying to gain access to an base, its not like they would stay grounded.
- Status