Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    Well it happens, either in US elementary schools, high school, college, university etc. levels. That's the concrete reality of the situation, little kids getting shot to death. You talking about fweedumb while getting naked and wrapping yourself with the stars and stripes is irrelevant.

    Well it is relevant in that the ideology of 'freedumb' is what enables all these shootings.
     
  2. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Centurion

    Jun 25, 2018
    OOoooOoooooOooOo Spoopy

    In seriousness tho, you act like it happens every day. And that gun control will fix it. Chicago. Strictest gun laws. SHITHOLE. New Hampshire. Flamethrowers. PARADISE.

    I put it very simply because the first time I said it, it apparently didn’t sink in.

    And @yfk12 , I know you and Mutie are actually both against me on this, so feel free to gang up on me. Played my best varsity games with a handicap.
     
  3. yfk12

    yfk12 Degenerate who belongs on a cross

    May 31, 2018
    Again, I'm not denying that the USA has serious problems. I don't think anyone here is. But it's nowhere near as bad as you seem to be making it out to believe.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  4. yfk12

    yfk12 Degenerate who belongs on a cross

    May 31, 2018
    Well since you asked...
    Chicago gets most of its guns from Indiana, which does have lax laws.
    As for flamethrowers, they're not that useful for a mass shooting, especially in an enclosed area (school), where the flamethrower would be as dangerous to the user as to the target.
     
  5. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Centurion

    Jun 25, 2018
    The point I was trying to make is that the laws in NH are the most lax in the nation, yet no school shootings happen.

    Also, most shootings are either one on one, or suicides, not mass shootings. And those shootings are done with handguns, not “high capacity assault rifles”.
     
  6. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    People are STILL responding to Muties blatant straw mans and sweeping generalizations? I mean, wasn't he kicked for doing the same shit earlier in the thread?
     
  7. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    This is just something the larger population can't do anything about, though. Our cities, transport and jobs are completely structured about considering the presence of motor vehicles. If you don't use them and aren't getting burned by that, it's that you're a forest hermit or something. And staying in your house doesn't count because guess what are they gonna bring you food in. That and the other minor changes can only seriously be "faulted" on people ONCE those measures happen in the large scale and then is up to us to follow.

    Eating less meat and shit at most is just something healthy you can do, it's not gonna make go way the 50 fucking billion units of livestock in the planet consuming the resources that could literally solve world hunger three fold.
     
  8. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht I guess you're through, huh? Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    We can't all have cars and computers and luxury goods. Dismantle the heavy industry, introduce widescale community farming where everyone works. Cars and complicated electronic devices will require a permit based on need, like if you're in a position of responsibility for the farms of a certain area where you need to get around a lot. Power will be rationed, and so will be food. It'd make sense to make eating insects normal here, because they're a good source of protein and have a minimal carbon footprint.
    To make living more ecological, a maximum living space for single people must be defined. 20 m² should be sufficient for anyone, it's not like you're supposed to spend too much time in your room when you can be outside in the (now) fresh air and work the fields. It's a much healthier living. Minimizing machinery on the fields will open up lots of old forgotten jobs and make the people physically fit again, and we can finally progress as an equal society. By eliminating electronic gizmos and status symbols for almost everyone, everyone will be equally rich. It's a way to a healthier, more traditional lifestyle (although of course old racist white traditions are discouraged) with a minimized ecological footprint and perfect equality for everyone.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  9. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    This kind of economic growth is actually a relatively new idea and not as old as it might seem, believe it or not but we have abundance today in almost everything, when was the last famine in the US for example? Hell, one of the most serious health issues in the US and Europe, is obesity and that has a reason. Food was never as cheap as it is now, consumption and production has always to increase in our society, or the system we have in place right now simply colapses. Innovations today are used very often to keep the growth rates going, products that are solely developed for profit and expanding markets or creating new ones, creating needs which are not obligatory. No one needs the newest iphones or fast food restaurants at every corner. Not really, when you think about it.

    Limits to Growth, is a book/research by the Club of Rome which offers many details about the issues.

    In the summer of 1970, an international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of continued worldwide growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet-population increase, agricultural production, nonrenewable resource depletion, industrial output, and pollution generation. The MIT team fed data on these five factors into a global computer model and then tested the behavior of the model under several sets of assumptions to determine alternative patterns for mankind’s future.
    https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/

    If we really want to avoid an environmental dissaster on a global scale, then we simply have to think about post-growth societies and how we can get there. When people tell me they need cars or eating less meat doesn't change anything, than they simply havn't looked hard enough at the alternatives or they can't imagine them. We can exist without cars and meat, they are actually a luxury when you think about it. We havn't been born as car nations, we simply developed in to one and this means that we can also reverse this development, if we wanted it, as societies that is. I quote: >>Back in the 1920s, most American city-dwellers took public transportation to work every day. Nowadays, by contrast, just 5 percent or so of workers commute via public transit, and they're disproportionately clustered in a handful of dense cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago.<<

    I am not saying we have to remove them all, but we could learn a lot from cities like Amsterdam. In Amsterdams inner city roughly 60% of the citizens use their bicycle. So it is possible and it can even increase the quality of live - studies even show that a bicycle is faster than most cars at distances less than 6km, due to traffic, parking etc. In Amsterdam, there are less deadly traffic accidents, less noice and environmental pollution, it also opens up space for housing and parks. Cars take up a lot of space that could be used differently for example. Large urban cities would have to use different policies and support more public transport while limiting or maybe outright banning the use of cars, at least in the inner city, alternatives like bicycles, buses, street cars etc. would have to be subisidized and improved. Those things are part of city planing and the general infrastructure and they are possible to achieve. We have good examples all over the world. And this could be done in many other areas, like meat consumption, where again better and more environmental friendly alternatives are subisized. Of course it sounds crazy now, but think about it in 10, 20 or 50 years. Those changes don't have to happen from one day to the other.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 11:47 AM
  10. yfk12

    yfk12 Degenerate who belongs on a cross

    May 31, 2018
    The problem is that for some of us, we need cars. For example, I personally live close to my town's city limits. The nearest grocery store is a 10 minute drive from my house and the nearest bus stop is over a mile away. So just getting groceries and coming back would take around 2 hours. So no, relying purely on bicicles and public transport don't work perfectly for everyone.
     
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    It doesn't have to. Again, the idea is not to 'bann' cars for all situations, but to make the alternatives better, more affordable, easier to use. Again, cities like Amsterdam show us that it's possible and they are by far not even the area with the highest use of bicycles, some smaller cities have even a higher number of cyclists. Don't treat it as a black and white scenario, where every citizen has to give up their cars, there are still cars used in the Netherlands as well, just at a much lower rate. And I also said that such changes would not come over night, just as how the US hasn't become a car nation in just one day.
     
  12. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht I guess you're through, huh? Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Can't get rid of cars, but y'know, we can always tax and regulate gasoline so that only with exceptional tax deductions (like for necessary farm equipment and driving around to control farms) you can actually drive a car. For the rest, public transport will be enough. That has the added bonus that the far-right-insurrection can't easily ferry their people all over the country to stage protests, too. It's really the best way to save freedom and democracy while also helping with the obesity epidemic (although the food rationing and switch to an agrarian society would also help, of course) and the environment.
     
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yeah, the fact how so many goods that you could actually consider a 'luxury' have become common and widespread is sometimes staggering when you consider how people lived just 90 or 100 years ago. That's what? 1 or 2 generations appart? There are like half a million people consantly in the air on average, right now! Imagine that.
     
  14. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Vault Dweller

    Oct 26, 2016
    Tolkein could fap to this paragraph.
     
  15. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht I guess you're through, huh? Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    And I still can't figure out if Crni gave rads to that primitivist/thinly veiled agrarian-collectivist dystopia out of irony or because he thinks it's actually a good idea.
    I mean, for the environment it would be a great idea. And I guess for the Inner Party. And who cares about the rest, right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 10:46 PM
  16. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    Nobody is dismantling heavy industry. They are making plans to build so much more huge factories, and I mean huge. In all areas of heavy industry. Hass thinks that it's all "pew pew lazurs" but no, it isn't. It's huge nasty ass factories spewing pollution into the land, sea and air of planet Earth. And these factories are built more and more in places like Asia, Africa, South America. Places where there is less nature protection legislation. But also in Europe, even in the rich countries of Europe.
     
  17. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Vault Dweller

    Oct 26, 2016
    Not saying I disagree about the effects of heavy industrialization, but the logical conclusion is to seek out areas you can build this infrastructure with as little overhead as possible. Developing countries invite this infrastructure because of jobs but pay for it in the long run (we all do).
     
  18. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht I guess you're through, huh? Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Your reading comprehension is hilarious at times.
    Obviously it's not what's being done, it's what should be done (well, not really, but one step at a time).
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    So let us say it could save humanity, you still would say, naw screw this it's autoritarian!

    Maybe it is a bit extreme and of course it's hypothetical and it probably will not happen anyway. But the way how I see it, we as global society are like an obese patient that doesn't want to loose weight, because it's 'to extreme', regardless of all the warnings by his doctors.

    *But to answer your question, yes it was more irony, but I do also believe that we will see a lot more regulations in the future. I don't see us all becoming farmers and forced to work in agriculture, but I could totally see a huge limitation on flights, a CO2 tax, maybe even a severe limit on how much meat you can eat or something like that. No clue.
     
  20. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    You being a 'researcher', out of us two, you're the lefty and I'm the right-winger.