Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.
That's because you have experience. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Not only that, we have already been down this path before. They Banned Assault "WEAPONS" in the 90's, even if rifle related deaths make up a minuscule fraction of any firearm related fatalities and it had zero effect on crime because they aren't really used in crimes.
Despite multiple attempts of people telling me to go post there and stop ruining their threads I have never been, so is he really that bad?
This is right. I like this.
Also, even in a theoretical future where America DID decide to ban all guns across all of America and make owning/selling them as illegal as owning/selling meth...
America's government already can't keep meth off the streets or off the black market. They can't keep it from crossing their borders. Adding more to their plate by making them ban more things wouldn't help their quest to stop meth sales/usage in America.
More annoying really. I won't get into it. Go read some threads.
That reminds me of the best line I ever heard about gun control.
It is not about if it will work, it is about saying we did something.
I did a little snooping earlier. I was not surprised by what I found.
Did... did this debate actually just end? Are we all in agreement that "Gun Control" is a faulty and immoral solution to an exaggerated problem that's only made worse by "gun control"?
When they tried to ban alcohol it didn't stop alcohol use. They're still trying to stop meth usage in the United States, to little success. "Gun Control" doesn't work because when the government has control over who does and doesn't get a gun, it becomes tyrannical. "Gun Control" is a bad solution, and that's why its fans try to whittle and chisel away at gun rights every few weeks to bring us closer to that bad idea being forced upon all of us, instead of just outright trying to pass a "Ban all guns" bill and failing then going home and finding a new hobby.
This thread goes to sleep every now and then only to get awoken when Mutant Scalper needs to rub one out to a bunch of dead people.
My god, the mouth on you. XD
I'll never get why lefties yell "this is the fault of guns and gun fans!" every time one mentally-unstable (and not caught by useless red flag laws) criminal with a black-market gun is able to shoot a shitload of unarmed and helpless idiots who either don't own proper guns or weren't allowed to carry their proper guns with them.
He didn't say anything about the people shot in Minneapolis so far. Odd.
Anyway, no, I don't necessarily believe that gun control is immoral, just that it's not something that is going to work in the US in any satisfactory way.
Ideally, any society should strive towards more freedom, and any restrictions of freedom have to result in benefits according to the amount of freedom taken away. Most european countries, having come from monarchies until rather recently, have never really known this particular element of freedom. Thus gun control is not a freedom that has been taken away in any recent time, and it is more acceptable. The whole society is structured around this particular lack of freedom, and it works to some degree. In the US, strict gun control (btw., you can have guns basically everywhere in Europe, it's just harder and more of a hassle; full bans of all firearms are very rare) would be a new restriction of freedom and thus would require significant benefits to be suitable. As established, the benefits are questionable, so from a cost/benefit analysis, strict gun control is not really useful in the US.
A similar example would be highway speed limits. In most countries, highways always had a certain maximum speed. In Germany, however, there is no general speed limit, if nothing else is indicated you can drive as fast as you like. That results in absurd situations like me driving a compact car at 160 km/h on the rightmost lane because 160 km/h is basically walking speed compared to the Audi drivers on that road who think that the red line is a challenge. People driving 250+ km/h is not an unusual sight.
So we Germans had this freedom for as long as those highways existed, but there's growing demand to establish general speed limits like basically every other country has. So the cost is a restriction of how fast you can go on the highway. If ever drove that fast, there is a noticable difference between 130 km/h and 160 km/h. Travel times will be longer, and the market for certain cars will be restricted, because you don't only never need fast cars, you can never use them, either.
What's the benefit? There's reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emission, and significantly reduced accidents and deaths, apparently. Some studies even claim that the reduced speed will actually lead to less traffic jams and thus better traffic flow in general.
And when you look at the travel times, going 160 isn't that much faster than 130. Very few people actually go 200+ for extended periods of time, and most highways have some restrictions somewhere, and there's construction and so on so it's not like you'll ever really get a benefit from really driving fast.
So is it worth giving up this personal freedom? From a cost/benefit point of view, yes. Overall effect on society is positive. Personally? I don't often drive fast, but I do enjoy it if I can. But I can live without it, and it's a freedom I'd be willing to give up.
Would you accept a ban on driving over 50 miles an hour, if it was argued for by a mix of car-fearing Luddites who think nobody should own a car, and sportscar-owning rich liberals who think only they should be allowed to own cars?
What if, after accepting that ban, they tried to force another ban onto you that banned going over 30 miles an hour?
Then twenty, then ten, then five?
Would it be worth giving up a little more of your personal freedom every month to a cult that hates you, gives you nothing in return for your compromises, will never respect you or leave you alone, and doesn't want you to be free?
No. I'd accept a speed limit of 130, which, to be honest, is the most you can drive realistically most of the time. Any limit below 100 would make the highway pointless, anyway.
No need to go on a tarded slippery slope here; this was supposed to be an example of how a realistic assessment of another situation where the restriction of a personal freedom is being discussed would pan out.
The big difference is that gun ownership is much more than just the personal freedom to have fun at the range, it's the ability to potentially defend yourself with lethal force. So that has to go into that assessment as well.
Debate ended when I put the onus on you to respond with sources or evidence for basically anything you said, as I did. You then ran away and didn't respond to any of my arguments because you knew you couldn't win. I thought that was pretty clear, but I obviously I overestimated your reading comprehension.
The problem is that he sees gun control as morally wrong. So there can't really be proper sources for that.
I haven't really provided sources either, but I tried to keep the argument in a logical fashion relying on as few sources as possible. The relevancy of certain weapon types in overall violent crime and accidents is readily available, and from that it should follow that banning "assault style rifles" can't have a significant impact on gun crime statistics.
Criminalization of anything is only ever going to be as good as the law enforcement. Did the war on drugs really work that great? Another war on guns would be unlikely to be successfull, either.
Large scale bans of firearms are unlikely to have significant benefit in the US. It's the root causes that have to be analyzed and tackled.
That leaves other types of restrictions. I proposed that licenses requiring written and practical exams or otherwise mandatory training sessions could help reduce accidental discharges and other misuse of guns. This needs to be structured in such a way that it would result in a minimal impact on the freedom to buy a gun, so it's not that simple of a matter, either.
Well that's the problem. I'm not massively interested in talking about feelings in a debate about policy, which he is. It's not where my interest lies.
As for what you said, I basically agree with everything. I believe in one of my earlier posts I acknowledged and explained that I don't support "Assault Weapon Bans" because they are misguided and incompetent policies, and obviously not where the majority of US gun violence lies. I am also of the opinion that non-Swiss European style gun control is nigh impossible even if you wanted it (Which I don't, despite the constant strawmanning of me as a stalinist lmfao.) in the United States because of the long-term proliferation of firearms as well as cultural factors, as I said earlier. It's just not going to happen.
The issue of gun-violence in the USA is inextricably linked to violence and crime in general, which are created by deeply rooted systemic issues related to poverty, mental healthcare and the very widespread social norms of violence in both institutions like the police and subcultures like gangs. These are all massive problems that have to be taken care of by a huge tree of different kinds of policies and some like the social norms you might not be able to ever fix. The Democrats effectively want to put a hello-kitty band-aid on it and the Republicans just want to stand and let it rot in the open air whilst they profit. That's not to say both parties are equal, because they aren't, but being a partisan hack as a normal citizen/voter and not a lobbyist or politician is a fool's game.
My point of contention was always that the effectiveness of certain types of regulatory policies is not full-proof proven but with evidence from other first world countries, it seems like reasonable and actually evidence guided legislation (i.e not broad sweeping bans on scary guns) could alleviate some of the gun-violence in the USA, perhaps slowing down the rate of mass-shootings in massacre style killings. I was also unwilling to accept the Brony's blatantly false characterization of gun policy and its effects in first world countries outside of America.
Wow, you're really aggressive when you're blatantly wrong and trying to hide it.
Listen, buddy, you're morally in the wrong here. You can bullshit people about poverty, mental healthcare, and "social norms of violence in the police and gangs" if you want. Even though you aren't trying to do anything good about poverty, mental healthcare, or gangs or the cops.
At the end of the day, you're no better than a thug who wants to mug me. What separates a thug who wants to take my money at gunpoint, and someone like you who wants to take my guns at gunpoint? A thug would have the decency to commit the crime in person and risk getting justifiably shot in self-defense. You're too cowardly for that.
You are the one making the positive claim that gun bans, something repeatedly proven to do little on a good day and enable communist corruption on bad days, can do anything good. You are the one making the positive claim that any more gun restrictions would be good for America.
The ball's in your court. You are the one making the claims you can't back up. Forcing gun bans onto others is morally wrong, objectively speaking. You can't morally justify that or the Red Flag Laws that exist to let people like you report their conservative and libertarian neighbours for thoughtcrime.
If you have any actual arguments you'd like to make for gun bans, I'd love to hear them.
Maybe if you had valid arguments for a gun-free lifestyle, you wouldn't have to abuse government power to force your views onto others.
So far, you've just bounced between blatantly-false claims, politically-motivated slander("Republicans profit off gun violence reee!"), childish insults aimed at me or my people, "I choose to interpret these statistics in this way so there", "I choose to believe correlation equals causation when it benefits me", "This expert says I'm right so there", and empty-headed shaming tactics like "Surely, a gun ban isn't a craaaazy idea or anything riiiight?".
Republicans don't profit off gun violence. Democrats profit off gun violence by convincing stupid people they can be safe without needing to buy a gun or learn how to use it safely and responsibly, as long as they "Vote Blue No Matter Who". See, pay very close attention to the difference between what you said VS what I said and you might learn something. You accused Republicans of profiting off gun violence because you're hysterical and irrational. I accused Democrats of profiting off gun violence and explained exactly how they benefit and why they do it. What's next, are you going to tell me you believe the NRA is a terrorist organization? If you want me to take your bullshit seriously, you'll need to provide an argument for it.
You aren't entitled to my respect. So if you want it, you should clean yourself up and clean your act up. So far, your act's only good for comedy.
I think he only does it when it is white people getting shot. I've never seen him bring up the souhtside of Chicago or Baltimore. I don't think he is a fan since even thinks I'm black for some reason and wants me to get shot in the head and it probably doesn't make for good COOM material in his eyes.
As a 'leftist' I guess the laws on the books are well enough. Everything more just seems like theatre. I'm of the 'enforce what we have' camp, and Democratic mainliners attempt to keep going on and on feels like a shot in the foot.
What else is there to discuss? Should we start opening court laws, discussions, state laws, ordinances? Meh.
Most of the Democrats in office are too rabid, most of the Republicans are too weak against the NRA. Just enforce what's on the books, have a bit more security in places, lets see what happens then.
If energy weapons become a thing, Russians will still somehow make them designed off of an AK.
Libertarian handwaving away policies their ideology can't actually competently handle? I'm shocked.
I made those arguments a few pages back and you ran away, saying "l-lies!!" and you haven't made an actual argument since. As I said before, I'll say again, I won't respond to you after this post unless you construct an actual argument with citation and proof, like I did. If you don't, we can chalk this up again as you running away from reality and being mentally incapable of making a real argument.
Except I'm not arguing for a "Gun-free lifestyle" and I've made that clear from the beginning, are you unwell in the head or is your reading comprehension really that bad?
Gun regulation usually only happens in places where there is crime to begin with and does a poor job at stopping gun violence.
Where there's a weirdo there's a weapon. Usually a bomb.