Gun Control

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I think there is a missconception or missunderstanding that some measures like say licencing is meant to stop and prevent all crimes. Well, it's not. You can't prevent all school shootings or crime. The point is to improve the situation so that you can prevent some without removing the weapons from everyone. And a lot of things can be done. For example a licence would allow authorities at least to step in when it's required. Think about someone who has severe depression or mental instability, or having a crminial record and so on. Having a licence for your car does not prevent every and all car accidents, but it does prevent some.

Can you actually QUANTIFY this or is it supposed to be taken as some kind of incontrovertible fact on its face? I see people who just got their DL driving like incompetent fucktards, I see people who got their DL 10 years ago driving like incompetent fucktards.

The authorities already have the ability to step in but have FAILED TO DO SO REPEATEDLY, most notably with the events leading up to the Parkland shooting in Florida. That shooting was so eminently preventable it boggles the mind to think that MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DROPPED THE BALL.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Ok, so what are you suggesting should be done? Because apparantly EVERYTHING is too much of an infringement to you, too extreme and completely ineffective. Do you propose we should also get rid of driver licences? No regulations ever? You already made it clear that you want 'assholes' to sort it out among themselfs and you thave no regard for any innocent bystanders caught in it.

The kind of society you want to live in, is impossible to achieve. It's not feasible. It's an utopian dream of anarchism/absolute liberterianism that would work for 5 min. before it lead to some kind of depotism and dictatorship. There are without a doubt many bad forms of governance, but there can never be NO governance.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Ok, so what are you suggesting should be done? Because apparantly EVERYTHING is too much of an infringement to you, too extreme and completely ineffective. Do you propose we should also get rid of driver licences? No regulations ever? You already made it clear that you want 'assholes' to sort it out among themselfs and you thave no regard for any innocent bystanders caught in it.

The kind of society you want to live in, is impossible to achieve. It's not feasible. It's an utopian dream of anarchism/absolute liberterianism that would work for 5 min. before it lead to some kind of depotism and dictatorship. There are without a doubt many bad forms of governance, but there can never be NO governance.

Aim for the stars, you'll still at the very least touch the sky. I don't think there will ever be a complete removal of the state within my lifespan, but I absolutely think that we should strive to rein it in as hard as we can, streamline it and set very strong boundaries for it whenever and wherever possible. To this end, I will argue for anarchism and against powerful states not because I think I will see the results within my lifetime but because it is an excellent point to always strive towards in all things.

Regarding despotism and dictatorship - we have never needed anarchism/absolute libertarianism to reach these before. To say these are a fault with the ideas of anarchism/absolute libertarianism is to imply they AREN'T an issue with any given form of statism, which would be absolutely laughable.

Also:

You already made it clear that you want 'assholes' to sort it out among themselfs and you thave no regard for any innocent bystanders caught in it.

Still hung up on that whole thing, huh? Keep tilting at that windmill, dude. I mean, I out and said it wasn't really a giant, Don Quixote.

Long story short: if your answer to every problem is to let the genie of statism out of the bottle you deserve to have your wishes twisted. Start looking at non-governmental solutions to shit BEFORE you go creating bureaucratic nightmares for everyone else.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Regarding despotism and dictatorship - we have never needed anarchism/absolute libertarianism to reach these before. To say these are a fault with the ideas of anarchism/absolute libertarianism is to imply they AREN'T an issue with any given form of statism, which would be absolutely laughable.

Seriously now, I do not mean this offensively or to attack you, I say this only as a small hint and hopefully you will see this as a suggestion rather than just criticism. But in all honesty, I do believe you have a serious problem with reading the posts of other people and comprehending the message they try to get to you. I am certainly not perfect and I sure do hell lot of mistakes missunderstanding people and their intention, but when it comes to that you take the cake and you do it all the time.

I never ever said that anachirsm is the source of depotism or dictatorship, or that we need it to get to it, as you quite correctly explained that it's not needed to get a dictatorship. What I say however, is that a state of anarchism, just like communism which shares some aspects to anarchism - for example the lack of government and authoritiy, would inevitably lead to dictatorship and depotism or at the very least a state that couldn't be called anarchism anymore. And why? Rather simple really. Human nature. This is of course very theoretical, since we never had a pure anarchist society. But you simply have to look in history and societies which had the least amount of regulations and protections to simply see how easy it was to exploit people under such conditions. I actually find the idea of anarchism and liberterianism actually very intriguing and really interesting and I would love it if we could create such socieites, I just don't see how those kind of utopian ideas could ever overcome human nature and actually become stable states or state-like entities. It is the biggest flaw of any socialist system for example, which is trying to force itself on humans and thus ignoring human nature, but it's just creating a form of state capitalism where the population is working for an elite under a socialist dictatorship. Smaller communities out there, are the ones that come closest to what anarchists, libertarians and communists believe and I have no doubts that they can work, but what works for 5, 10 or even 100 people, isn't necessarily feasible for something as large like the United States with its opulation of 300 million, or the European Union with 500 million people.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

You'll have to pardon me if I find the notion that leaving people the fuck alone is utopian to be terribly fucking funny. Also, we disagree FUNDAMENTALLY on human nature itself - assholes are the aberrations and exceptions to the rule IMO, we are generally a highly social and cooperative species.

To expand upon the first part - that is one of my BIGGEST PEEVES with any sort of government. Government does not know when to leave people the hell alone most of the time. It requires CONSTANT PUSHBACK from private citizens to keep government from glomming onto everything it can as a matter of self-perpetuation. The government has no fear whatsoever of John Q. Average - no matter whether he votes Red or Blue at the voting booth, government will be perpetuated. Right now the only thing probably keeping the US government in check is IRONICALLY other governments who will find ways to piss in Uncle Sam's Cheerios the moment things actually reach a boiling point (and we really might not be too far from that now). This is how bad things have gotten. We are laughably below parity with government in many areas for ability to use force/violence and people want to make it WORSE. They have NO IDEA what kind of disaster they're courting and they don't CARE because they've become soft, dependent on the (nearly nonexistent) goodwill of the government. Government is the people? Don't be absurd. Government is a caste above and they bloody well know it. They SHOULD have a healthy fear of their populace and that seems to be mostly absent in light of things like the Patriot Act and the trampling of various parts of the Bill of Rights by state apparatuses such as police and judges.

The only thing the government respects or even fears is something else with the ability to knock it right the fuck off its perch, and the citizens' ability to do that is RAPIDLY being undermined.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You'll have to pardon me if I find the notion that leaving people the fuck alone is utopian to be terribly fucking funny. Also, we disagree FUNDAMENTALLY on human nature itself - assholes are the aberrations and exceptions to the rule IMO, we are generally a highly social and cooperative species.

Yes, and I don't believe anyone here disagreed particularly with this idea that most people are for the most part reasonale and trying just to survive and live decent lives in their communites. However, as it is often the case we have safety measures, regulations and laws not for the majority, but to protect the majority from the minority of idiots, assholes and corrupt psychopaths out there that simply fuck up everything for everyone. For example, It takes only one person to cause an oil-spill of the size of a whole state on some oil-platform, if they don't follow a correct safety procedure because it's cheaper to ignore it and suddenly 100 000 of people find them self in a situation that should never ever happen.

It requires CONSTANT PUSHBACK from private citizens to keep government from glomming onto everything it can as a matter of self-perpetuation

And this is what actually seperates acceptable governments from the 'bad' ones, as they give citizens the tools to do so. It is true, yes it is a constant battle between private rights and how much power the government should have over it's citizens. And I would say, just from what you say here, it is doing a someewhat decent job as you're quite content with the way how NRAers, Lobbysts and gun-activists defend your amendment for example. And if I had to make a guess, you're als pro-Trump and in favour of his policies? No clue, I am just guessing.

Government is a caste above and they bloody well know it.

That's all nice and dandy, but can you name a feasible alternative that could provide you at least with the same or similar oportunites you have under a government? It should be also something that's not just a hypothetical construct but something that can give you a stable society where 300 million people can live together.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Yes, and I don't believe anyone here disagreed particularly with this idea that most people are for the most part reasonale and trying just to survive and live decent lives in their communites. However, as it is often the case we have safety measures, regulations and laws not for the majority, but to protect the majority from the minority of idiots, assholes and corrupt psychopaths out there that simply fuck up everything for everyone. For example, It takes only one person to cause an oil-spill of the size of a whole state on some oil-platform, if they don't follow a correct safety procedure because it's cheaper to ignore it and suddenly 100 000 of people find them self in a situation that should never ever happen.

You had me up until "cheaper to ignore it". It is never actually cheaper to ignore these kinds of things. Any businessman who tells himself "Fuck those safety regs, they're just cutting into my profit margin" is being an oblivious idiot and a bad businessman. Look at the turnaround ALCOA had and the REASON they had it for an example of how you're supposed to fucking do it as a business. You don't necessarily need a huge bureaucracy to put safety regs into place, you just need to remind people constantly that saving a penny now and hemorrhaging hundreds of dollars later is really fucking stupid.

And this is what actually seperates acceptable governments from the 'bad' ones, as they give citizens the tools to do so. It is true, yes it is a constant battle between private rights and how much power the government should have over it's citizens. And I would say, just from what you say here, it is doing a someewhat decent job as you're quite content with the way how NRAers, Lobbysts and gun-activists defend your amendment for example. And if I had to make a guess, you're als pro-Trump and in favour of his policies? No clue, I am just guessing.

My opinion of the NRA is somewhat mixed but I think most of their problems are fixable if members start shorting them on member dues every time they do something fucking stupid. There is a competing organization called GOA (Gun Owners of America I believe) that puts their head up their own asses far less frequently. Lobbyists I also have mixed opinions of overall (usually depending on their industry affiliation) but they're just a symptom, not the actual disease, and at times they can do positive things, so I generally don't really resent them too terribly much (with notable exceptions on a case by case basis). Gun-activists is a somewhat over-broad category, but in general anyone who staunchly defends not merely the letter of the 2A but the spirit has their head screwed on at least mostly correctly. I am extremely ambivalent on Trump for the most part, both due to his policies and due to his character. Given the choice Americans were offered, I am not shocked nor particularly dismayed he was elected. The best choice out of 2 laughably bad ones was made, that much I am sure of, but I don't really resent him overmuch as I do the system that insists on constantly placing us between rocks and hard places with no in-between.

That's all nice and dandy, but can you name a feasible alternative that could provide you at least with the same or similar oportunites you have under a government? It should be also something that's not just a hypothetical construct but something that can give you a stable society where 300 million people can live together.

Why 300 million? I don't agree that we need to ALL be on the same exact boat - smaller communities with good fences to make good neighbors of the lot would actually be preferable. I'd probably be reasonably happy with a revisiting of the concept of states' rights in the USA with MUCH more focus on stronger individual states and weaker federal government. It wouldn't be IDEAL to me but it doesn't really NEED to be, either. Look at it this way - as much as I generally dislike commies, I actually wouldn't mind if the folks next door went straight-up fucking AnCom/anarcho-syndicalist/mutualist or something like that as long as they didn't fuck with me and mine. (Of course, good luck telling any flavor of communist to mind his own damn business most of the time.)

The thing about living with and around other people is that you don't need to agree about absolutely everything, nor do you need to behave exactly alike. All you need to do is not be an asshole or a busybody when and if you interact, and never EVER tolerate shit thrown in your direction for long. Establish boundaries and promise serious consequences for their violation (but do pick your battles wisely), while also leaving the possibility for the exchange of ideas and goods as needed or desired. Some people are absolutely CONVINCED you need a state for that, but I disagree.

 

[GonZo_626]

Well unlike Crni and Dogboy, I am a man of libertarian values who works for a municipal government. I can tell you right now although you may be right that most people are not assholes they can still act like as asshole when it suits them, and most of the time it suits them. I have been told I am a fascist dictator by a 75 year old lady because I told an oilfield company to move a field access she uses 20m for better visibility. I have seen what happens to those who go I can do whatever I want on MY LAND, they either become the biggest pain in our asses when their neighbor does the same or whatever they are doing falls apart cause they had no idea of what they were doing. You take away governments and expect everyone to act all good in anarchy and I bet 90% of people are dead within a year.

Why is this you may ask? It is because 90% of people are selfish pricks who think they deserve everything and that everything they do is perfect. And trust me I have my ways of dealing with them. Oh its your land you can do what you want right? How about I but the land next door and start a weapons research facility, or a toxic waste dump, I mean its my land I can do what I want right. Your Anarchy their dogboy is a complete fucking mess. Being a libertarian also involves doing whatever the fuck you want as long as it causes no one else harm. Most people from what I can see will do someone else harm just to get ahead a little bit.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Well unlike Crni and Dogboy, I am a man of libertarian values who works for a municipal government.

The irony isn't lost on me.

I can tell you right now although you may be right that most people are not assholes they can still act like as asshole when it suits them, and most of the time it suits them.

If you act like an asshole, you're an asshole. If people are acting like assholes, it's because something is incentivizing it. (Governments are infamous for incentivizing assholish, selfish behavior from both government employees and citizens alike, though it's usually due to incompetence, negligence or "whoops, we didn't anticipate THAT when we wrote that law")

I have been told I am a fascist dictator by a 75 year old lady because I told an oilfield company to move a field access she uses 20m for better visibility.

Sticks and stones. She probably doesn't even know what "fascist" means. Most people who throw the word around don't. I especially would dismiss her opinion based on the fact that the field access in question apparently wasn't hers or on her property anyway. Mind your own business, lady.

I have seen what happens to those who go I can do whatever I want on MY LAND, they either become the biggest pain in our asses when their neighbor does the same or whatever they are doing falls apart cause they had no idea of what they were doing.

People who do stupid things should be allowed to fail - it's their best chance at figuring out that they shouldn't do stupid things anymore. Anyone who applies a double standard when comparing what they do with their land, to what others do with theirs, is being an idiot and a busybody.

Let's run a hypothetical. You and I are neighbors. On the other side of my property from you, there is a pretty lake that you can see from your kitchen window. You do not own the lake, nor any of the land between the lake and the border of my property next to where your kitchen window is. I decide to plant some trees around the edge of my property for a privacy hedge. This will block your view of the lake (that you do not own). What do you do?

You take away governments and expect everyone to act all good in anarchy and I bet 90% of people are dead within a year.

If you're right, and they're all a bunch of assholes who do asshole things because they can, is this a loss? /s Regardless, I doubt your figure. Coming from a government worker this sounds a lot like "YOU NEED ME, I'M SMARTER THAN YOU" but I digress, perhaps.

Why is this you may ask? It is because 90% of people are selfish pricks who think they deserve everything and that everything they do is perfect.

And as we all know, only that blessed 10% who aren't selfish pricks ever make it into government.

And trust me I have my ways of dealing with them. Oh its your land you can do what you want right? How about I but the land next door and start a weapons research facility, or a toxic waste dump, I mean its my land I can do what I want right. Your Anarchy their dogboy is a complete fucking mess. Being a libertarian also involves doing whatever the fuck you want as long as it causes no one else harm. Most people from what I can see will do someone else harm just to get ahead a little bit.

Nowhere have I ever said people should be free to cause undue harm to others in this or any other fashion, and I don't believe the idea that without government to loom over absolutely everyone 90 percent (NINETY FUCKING PERCENT) of human beings would instantly start doing obviously stupid and harmful shit.

 

[GonZo_626]

The irony isn't lost on me.



If you act like an asshole, you're an asshole. If people are acting like assholes, it's because something is incentivizing it. (Governments are infamous for incentivizing assholish, selfish behavior from both government employees and citizens alike, though it's usually due to incompetence, negligence or "whoops, we didn't anticipate THAT when we wrote that law")



Sticks and stones. She probably doesn't even know what "fascist" means. Most people who throw the word around don't. I especially would dismiss her opinion based on the fact that the field access in question apparently wasn't hers or on her property anyway. Mind your own business, lady.



People who do stupid things should be allowed to fail - it's their best chance at figuring out that they shouldn't do stupid things anymore. Anyone who applies a double standard when comparing what they do with their land, to what others do with theirs, is being an idiot and a busybody.

Let's run a hypothetical. You and I are neighbors. On the other side of my property from you, there is a pretty lake that you can see from your kitchen window. You do not own the lake, nor any of the land between the lake and the border of my property next to where your kitchen window is. I decide to plant some trees around the edge of my property for a privacy hedge. This will block your view of the lake (that you do not own). What do you do?



If you're right, and they're all a bunch of assholes who do asshole things because they can, is this a loss? /s Regardless, I doubt your figure. Coming from a government worker this sounds a lot like "YOU NEED ME, I'M SMARTER THAN YOU" but I digress, perhaps.



And as we all know, only that blessed 10% who aren't selfish pricks ever make it into government.



Nowhere have I ever said people should be free to cause undue harm to others in this or any other fashion, and I don't believe the idea that without government to loom over absolutely everyone 90 percent (NINETY FUCKING PERCENT) of human beings would instantly start doing obviously stupid and harmful shit.

First things first, I am no smarter then any other person. What I do as a government employee is engineering work, what I have seen from any individual is they need to be spoon fed why they cant do something. And guess what its not the asshole who built the thing telling the gov he can do what he wants that suffers like you seem to think. He usually has realized he fucked it up and sells it and some innocent person gets duped into buying it and gets screwed. Therefore the original dude harmed others. What some gov employees do is look at the big picture that most people never see. Yes there are some who think that they are smarter then the people they work for, but at least from what I can see they are the minority. But go ahead and look at the world through your broken glasses that may you think only you know the best way (hmmmm, smarter then everyone else are you? Irony) and that if everything just went the way you thought it should everything will work. Be selfish and think that only you know the answer and we should all listen to you cause you cant be wrong can you? Just like the rest of the 90% who only look out for themselves.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

And he shows his hand - a big fat "NO U". Lol, k.

>Argue vociferously for my position
>"Oh you think you know all the answers huh? Selfish!"

Right, next time I'll genuflect and bow and scrape like a good little peon. *snort* How very dare I have a strong opinion. Get the fuck over yourself. Your "best argument" is an attempt to basically shame me into accepting government as knowing better. I don't know if the government is somehow MAGICALLY less grossly incompetent and so on North of the border, but somehow I really doubt it. If anything, government work itself seems to be an asshole magnet like no other. Ever tried dealing with CPS in the States, as an example? Shit's a fucking nightmare, and YET they constantly overlook genuine child abuse cases - hell, they funnel kids INTO abusive situations in group/foster homes more often than not. Or hell, let's talk about the EPA and how they turned the Colorado River into a toxic soup the color and consistency of orange juice. I'm sure I could think of more.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Now imagine that this Jacksonville Madden tournament was a Fortnite one instead, I'd bet it'd lead to some game ban earlier that a gun reform.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackso...ng-madden-19-esports-tournament-live-updates/

If you pay attention, you can even see the red pointer go over one of the guys: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/327117991403585536/483358415733915659/maddenoof.webm

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's depressing how normal mass shootings have become. It's almost like it's a part of American culture now.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

If your first response to a tragedy is "I demand the government do away with the enumerated rights of law-abiding citizens" you're a gravestanding piece of garbage.

 

[MutantScalper]

Virgil condoning a mass shooting at a gaming event. Nice going.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/26/us/jacksonville-madden-shooting/index.html

 

[Deleted member 93956]

"Shut up fucken anti gun dicks nothing could hae changed"

Meanwhile, in Florida:

- No Background Checks whatsoever
- No Duty to Inform (Citiziens an't be obligated to answer about owned weapons to authorities), unless the Red Flag law enables which can confiscate up for a year if the suspect is "deemed dangerous" (doesn't seem to apply very often if you had the guy saying he felt like shooting somebody...)
- No Assault Weapon or Magazine Capacity laws
- No state permits and no owner license needed
- Literally illegal to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
- Castle/"Stand your ground" law is active
- Concealed Carry is the most widely accepted and valid interstate, as well as flexible, excepting places like airports and whatnot
- Agre treshold is 21.

Gonna have a good giggle at the SEEEE IT DOESN'T WARK crowd. Or the "well it's on them for not being prepared!" club.

If your first response to a tragedy is "I demand the government do away with the enumerated rights of law-abiding citizens" you're a gravestanding piece of garbage.

I think you're the piece of garbage if you have guns and rights related to them over actual people's lives in your priority list, sorry.

 

[TheGM]

"Shut up fucken anti gun dicks nothing could hae changed"

Meanwhile, in Florida:

- No Background Checks whatsoever
- No Duty to Inform (Citiziens an't be obligated to answer about owned weapons to authorities), unless the Red Flag law enables which can confiscate up for a year if the suspect is "deemed dangerous" (doesn't seem to apply very often if you had the guy saying he felt like shooting somebody...)
- No Assault Weapon or Magazine Capacity laws
- No state permits and no owner license needed
- Literally illegal to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
- Castle/"Stand your ground" law is active
- Concealed Carry is the most widely accepted and valid interstate, as well as flexible, excepting places like airports and whatnot
- Agre treshold is 21.

Gonna have a good giggle at the SEEEE IT DOESN'T WARK crowd. Or the "well it's on them for not being prepared!" club.


I think you're the piece of garbage if you have guns and rights related to them over actual people's lives in your priority list, sorry.

Videogames is what made him do it. no videogames, wouldn't have happened.

Check mate.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Videogames is what made him do it. no videogames, wouldn't have happened.

Check mate.

Oh, I'm absolutely certain that there's gonna be more changes from the game industry than anything else. Being the first incident of the sort, I'm sure. Perhaps to try and classify gatherings for competitive esports or just general hangouts (like the official Hearthstone "taverns" or other cybercafes) as a non-allowed concealed carry, or plain just harsher background checking on participants. Which is kind of hilarious, when you think about it. Probably gonna have some bullshit measure from he US govt to try and save face about it, but other than that I doubt there's gonna be much of anything.

 

[Hassknecht]

I think you're the piece of garbage if you have guns and rights related to them over actual people's lives in your priority list, sorry.

It's more about "individual rights over anything else" than gun rights specifically.
The point remains: A criminal will always find ways to do harm. Granted, widespread access to guns and being desensitized to guns and violence might increase the rate of spontaneous harm done by firearms (like the dude shooting himself or his wife in the foot or something in church trying to demonstrate gun safety), but banning guns won't stop any guy trying to run amok.
I see where the 2nd Amendment hardlining comes from, but we already established that I disagree with it since I don't necessarily see "the state" or "the government" as this fundamentally evil entity that's only out to harm us; I see it as a necessary evil to keep society going.
Maybe a firearm license similar to a driver's license is in order. This would establish that a person with a legal firearm has proper knowledge, which might reduce the rate of accidental discharges at least a little bit. On the other hand, driver's licenses don't prevent all accidents, and some people still manage to get a license while being factually mentally unfit to handle traffic and too stupid to even put butter on bread.
Still, mandatory firearm training is something to be thought about. Maybe (re-)establish shooting classes in school or something. You can't get rid of guns in the US, might as well try and train kids in them as soon as possible. Don't see that happening anytime soon, or the american school system being up for the task.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Like I said, the bare minimum would be to have a nationwide standard and to fix some of the most glaring issues. But extremists can't even agree to that, because 'MUH RIGHTS!' and it's the way to communism apparantly.

Even something like this:

• Universal background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people
• Safe and secure storage of firearms to prevent access by children or any unauthorized person

Is already to much for some.

However, it is very doubtfull that anything will change, at least not very soon. You had someone storm a kindergarden with a rifle and killing children. If that doesn't change something, nothing ever will. I think it will take a whole generation before anything is even done in that direction. To many politicans are to deep in the pockets of the gun industry and gun activists are very well conected, so they storm any town hall meeting in masses if they have to. Not to mention some seem a bit to open for conspiracy theories here which makes it difficult to get any argument going.

It is funny though how some extremists among gun owners say they just want to fight 'opression', however as the minority they kinda want to force their view on the public and the majority. That's seems a bit intrusive.

Videogames is what made him do it. no videogames, wouldn't have happened.

Check mate.

Videogames are harder regulated in some states than guns. Go figure.