MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Time to go post about trannies or something, Heinz?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
And take your cavalry Jogre (Walpkunt's sock?) and Crni with you.
Last edited:
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Time to go post about trannies or something, Heinz?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
And take your cavalry Jogre (Walpkunt's sock?) and Crni with you.
What's your fucking problem?
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Are you a member of Belgian (?) NRA? Is there a NRA in Belgium? There is over here, like I wrote earlier, they are linked with all kinds of looney fringe right-wingers. Their rhetoric doesn't convince me at all.
Also, that kind of attitude where there is zero, nada, sympathy for the victims of these shootings is, well, totally weird. Let's just say totally weird and keep this relatively friendly but actually I think it's something much much worse.
Uh, you do notice that I helped you, right? Graves mentioned that the US is only 28th in gun crimes, and by pointing out "western world" I meant that most of the these countries are not actually western world, which is what you meant.
Also, Crni is arguing for gun control as well. You seem to be extremely unaware of everything these days, are you having a stroke or something?
Also, Heinz? Fritz fits much better, and you could make the argument that Hans also works, but Heinz? Nah bruh.
Last edited:
For every example you think you can quote, I can either show you're misinterpreting statistics (like with the case of Australia) or I can give an example of exactly the opposite effect.
And? Have I ever said I was represented by the NRA in any way, shape or form? The NRA doesn't speak for me. I am entitled to my own opinion.
Funny, he literally says they need those weapons to do their job safely. Which means that for the most part, they are used defensively (in defense of self or others).
Again, this is just a meaningless semantics battle you're fighting here.
Funny. The whole point that has been made throughout the entire thread is that stricter gun laws does not lower violent crime, but you keep going back to saying "gun violence".
I guess the Japs are way better off with people driving pickups into crowds, getting out & stabbing people.
You'll also find that gun ownership has been steadily increasing in Japan over the past few decades. And gun violence didn't increase although the gun ownership increased. Hmz. That's weird, right?
Keep it civil, or leave the thread.
There's no real thing like the NRA here. I'm not an international member of the american NRA either.
There are collector's and sport shooting federations here, but they are nowhere close to being anything like the NRA. Most focus on olympic shooting etc.
Do you think I want innocents to die in mass shootings and crime? Of course not.
But you are placing other innocents in a situation where they have less opportunity and tools to protect themselves from crime as well as removing fundamental freedoms from society.
You think police can keep you safe? Last week a girl was raped THREE consecutive times walking home from a party in London. That's not a gang rape btw, she got raped once, staggered away, met another guy that saw she was half naked, she got raped again, then she staggered away met another completely separate guy and got assaulted again.
A few years ago, we had here in Belgium a gang of homejackers which would prey on older people. They would storm their house & force them to give over their valuables. If they offered any resistance, they would rape the elderly women just to prove a point.
This is the world we live in.
Earlier in this thread @Darice said he did not want people to have guns because he thought people are evil & violent by nature. Well, I advocate to give law abiding people the legal tools to protect themselves as bad they can. I believe that is a fundamental right. Yes, this will have a cost, as people will surely abuse those rights and a minority of people will misuse their weapons in crime. But the absence of guns does not make violent crime go away. And by making guns go away, you have turned the law abiding citizens into sheep which can be led to the slaughter by anyone who is willing to commit crime.
It is damn easy to appeal to emotion. Why won't someone please think of the children!?!
But guns in themselves do not cause violent crime or mass shootings. Just like trucks and vans used by Jihadists in France and Spain are not responsible for the casualties.
We need to look at the causes of crime and in the case of the USA we also need to take a long hard look at mental health and prescription medication. But that's a lot harder than just yelling "ban guns!" and doesn't provide any political gains, so there's really no incentives for politicians to even bother.
Except that it isn't ... we're going in circles here.
When a police officer, you or anyone else is the witness of a crime and you're pulling your gun out then you're doing it in an offensive way, otherwise no one would be intimidated by the weapon.
There are no 'defensive' fire arms! They are all offensive by their very nature. They are made to shoot targets, do you denny that?
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Hey remember that political
Need to look past the superficial to the underlying causes of violence, poverty, failed social policy, breakdown of family in ghettos etc. etc. etc.
You can't just take guns out of the equation and compare, say Tokyo to Chicago as if all other things are equal. There's quite a few other factors at play that differentiate them then just the absence of guns. That's just scratching the surface.
Need to look past the superficial to the underlying causes of violence, poverty, failed social policy, breakdown of family in ghettos etc. etc. etc.
Sadly, the US skipped the whole "civilisation" between Barbarity and Decadence, so yeah, can't get rid of guns for now.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Civilization. Ancient and wicked.
I've been saying that the object is irrelevant, and that the way something is used is relevant. You on the other hand keep assigning value or judgement to inanimate objects.
My argument is that if an object is used in the defense of something (yourself, someone else or something else), it constitutes being defensive. If it is used to attack something unprovoked, then it is offensive.
I'm not sure why you want to keep going in circles about this. I'm not going to concede to your point & you won't to mine. So let's just acknowledge that we understand what each of us is saying, but that we don't agree on this subject?
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Because you stink, maybe 
?
Explain to me, why firearms are 'defensive' weapons when the exact same firearm can be also used in an ASSAULT.
?No, what you harp on is the way how YOU and a large number of responsible weapon owners use your weapons for, where as I think about the INTENDED design of firearms in general. Self defence is described in terms of action, not by design. A farmer using his trusty K98k might be with a defensive intend, but that doesn't change the fact that it's intended design was to shoot someone or something. In other words, bringing something down by sending a bullet his way, if necessary.
Explain to me, why firearms are 'defensive' weapons when the exact same firearm can be also used in an ASSAULT.
I don't usually insert myself in these types of thread, because as stated, they tend to go in circles and devolve into personal insults and slights based on national and cultural stereotyping, on all sides of the discussion. But I'll participate briefly in this one, on the understanding that a.) I do not speak for all gun owners, Americans, or pretty much anybody other then myself, and b.) that I am neither interested in selling my position to anyone, or buying into theirs.
Those stipulations made, I am an American gun owner, of the 'super owner' sort. I've used firearms professionally in both military service and in sales of civilian, military, and law enforcement equipment. I've been involved in the sporting community for 20 years. I am obviously on the pro-firearm side of any gun control argument, though I am not looking to make converts here.
Cmi - I am not entirely sure I understand the point you are trying to make with the 'offensive' versus 'defensive' nature of firearms, although in fairness, I have not read all 30+ pages of this thread. 'Offensive' and 'defensive' are characteristics of use. I wouldn't characterize a baseball bat or a vehicle as being 'designed for offense', but if either of them were used to assault someone, I would consider them as having been used 'offensively'. I suppose firearms could be considered offensive in the sense that they are designed to project force at distance, as opposed to passively to distribute, deflect, or absorb said force. In the same vein, you could say that an arrow in flight, a thrown rock, or an out-thrust knife are all 'offensive' in nature, whether designed for those purposes or otherwise. But mostly I view it as a semantic argument, and it doesn't really get anybody anywhere other then with their respective choirs. So as best I can, I will try to express things as I understand them without semantics.
Are some firearms designed with the goal of projecting lethal force? Absolutely. Are most of them? Probably. All? No. Do some designs enable greater potential for abuse? Yes. Do they have social utility beyond their potential for harm? My side says yes. Other sides say no. Where society lands between those two positions is a function of law and moral will.
Those stipulations made, I am an American gun owner, of the 'super owner' sort. I've used firearms professionally in both military service and in sales of civilian, military, and law enforcement equipment. I've been involved in the sporting community for 20 years. I am obviously on the pro-firearm side of any gun control argument, though I am not looking to make converts here.
Cmi - I am not entirely sure I understand the point you are trying to make with the 'offensive' versus 'defensive' nature of firearms, although in fairness, I have not read all 30+ pages of this thread. 'Offensive' and 'defensive' are characteristics of use. I wouldn't characterize a baseball bat or a vehicle as being 'designed for offense', but if either of them were used to assault someone, I would consider them as having been used 'offensively'. I suppose firearms could be considered offensive in the sense that they are designed to project force at distance, as opposed to passively to distribute, deflect, or absorb said force. In the same vein, you could say that an arrow in flight, a thrown rock, or an out-thrust knife are all 'offensive' in nature, whether designed for those purposes or otherwise. But mostly I view it as a semantic argument, and it doesn't really get anybody anywhere other then with their respective choirs. So as best I can, I will try to express things as I understand them without semantics.
Are some firearms designed with the goal of projecting lethal force? Absolutely. Are most of them? Probably. All? No. Do some designs enable greater potential for abuse? Yes. Do they have social utility beyond their potential for harm? My side says yes. Other sides say no. Where society lands between those two positions is a function of law and moral will.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
To be honest. I was really against gun control a while back. But with the recent that happened in Vegas. Well truth be told, my view point has changed and I'm starting think we really stricter gun laws at the federal level and at least let them be enforced in every shop that sells gun. Something like this shouldn't have been able to happen.
I can certainly understand the sentiment, and the belief that this sort of thing was entirely preventable if only we could have restricted access to guns. And perhaps that is true in this circumstance, but perhaps not. Of the largest acts of mass murder in contemporary US history, the top two were perpetrated with diesel fuel and fertilizer in the one case, and box razors in the other. Would restrictions on firearms make these sort of attacks harder, or lower the body count? The answer again is probably, though to what magnitude it is hard to say. And my bet is the sort of person who would use a firearm in this sort of way would probably still exist, and simply change their targets and tactics to things like crowded boulevards and stolen trucks.
I am against gun control. To the point where I will instantly become a single issue voter, and actively vote and lobby against gun control initiatives that limit my ability to pursue my interests. But I am not against regulation, provided it is not purposefully prohibitive as a means to eliminate legal ownership and use. I jump through a pile of hoops to own silencers and short barrelled rifles, to include finger prints, background checks, formal notification to the ATF, and a ridiculously long wait for approval. I tolerate all of that but the 11-12 month waiting period fairly well, and I recognize the government's interest in regulating these sorts of items. When a regulation comes out that I may not like or may cause me additional inconvenience, such as the recent 41F change to the NFA process, but doesn't fundamentally compromise my ownership or use, then I will not advocate for it, but I won't actively vote against it, too.
And the unpleasant truth is that until enough Americans are willing to become single issue voters for gun control, the most likely way to effect change towards greater regulation is to find something gun advocates don't hate enough to mobilize and actively vote against. In this case, ban or regulation of bump-fire stocks may be that item.
I am against gun control. To the point where I will instantly become a single issue voter, and actively vote and lobby against gun control initiatives that limit my ability to pursue my interests. But I am not against regulation, provided it is not purposefully prohibitive as a means to eliminate legal ownership and use. I jump through a pile of hoops to own silencers and short barrelled rifles, to include finger prints, background checks, formal notification to the ATF, and a ridiculously long wait for approval. I tolerate all of that but the 11-12 month waiting period fairly well, and I recognize the government's interest in regulating these sorts of items. When a regulation comes out that I may not like or may cause me additional inconvenience, such as the recent 41F change to the NFA process, but doesn't fundamentally compromise my ownership or use, then I will not advocate for it, but I won't actively vote against it, too.
And the unpleasant truth is that until enough Americans are willing to become single issue voters for gun control, the most likely way to effect change towards greater regulation is to find something gun advocates don't hate enough to mobilize and actively vote against. In this case, ban or regulation of bump-fire stocks may be that item.
And this is the problem. Making the same mistake like Suaside ... you always mix up "Firearms" with every day objects, like as it all would be the same.
Tell me, what is the INTENDED design of a firearm? To shoot something, right? What is the INTENDED design of a baseball bat? To kill someone? To hit someone? No, it's intended design is to be used in a very specific activity, namely baseball, and that as effectively as possible.
A firearm, any firearm is used to hit a target, and in most cases that target is expected to be human or at the very least an animal, so a living being. A firearm that can't hit everything else, but a human or animal ... would be a pretty useless firearm, I have yet to see one.
And this is what I do NOT get with gun nuts. I love weapon designs. I would actually really like to own weapons. I really really love their design, the intimitading look, holding it, shooting it must be also pretty fun, it makes you feel and look damn powerfull. Simply put, I really find weapons fascinating and I like fantasysing about how it must be to own a machine gun, going to the next shooting range and just shooting it, like an M60 (a design I really like) or something similar.
I can understand gun owners better than they think.
But you really have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain firearms as something that is "defensive" by nature. I am not kidding my self. Firearms, are offensive by nature. Or they would be absolutely useless, even in a self-defence situation.
Please, explain to me in clear words, why is this a "defensive" weapon?
Last edited:
It's possible I misunderstand you, but it is equally likely you misunderstand me. You are arguing against a position I didn't take. As far as I am concerned, it is a weapon, whether the person using it feels they are doing so offensively, defensively, or otherwise. The one you posted a picture of was no doubt conceived as concealable firearm with which to kill. My favorite hand-gun, the 1911, was conceived of for use by calvary officers to kill. One of my favorite rifle designs, the Remington 700, was designed with the intent to kill animals for food. Most, though not all, firearms are designed with the intent to be effective at killing something. If the word you wish to use for the terms you have described them in over the last two pages is 'offensive', then I concede to your term. I'm just not sure what your point is.
Is a baseball bat designed in a way that is optimized for the game of baseball? I assume so. Is a billy club designed to optimize beating someone? I'd assume so. Can either be used for the other's purposes? Yes. In the same way, a sword, which was designed for stabbing, can be enjoyed in fencing. An arrow, designed for killing an animal, can be enjoyed in competitions of skill. People have long enjoyed a variety of martial activities as forms of recreation. Whether you think the social utility of hunting or sport shooting does not outweigh the social costs of potential misuse is a value judgment. And that value judgment is the same in practice as to whether the value of alcohol outweighs it's consequences, or the value of the internal combustion engine and the fossil fuel economy outweighs it's environmental damage.
You may not like the comparison because the firearm is designed for 'offense' and the vehicle is designed for transportation, but the calculus of benefit to cost is the same. You just don't agree with me on which of those terms is greater.
Is a baseball bat designed in a way that is optimized for the game of baseball? I assume so. Is a billy club designed to optimize beating someone? I'd assume so. Can either be used for the other's purposes? Yes. In the same way, a sword, which was designed for stabbing, can be enjoyed in fencing. An arrow, designed for killing an animal, can be enjoyed in competitions of skill. People have long enjoyed a variety of martial activities as forms of recreation. Whether you think the social utility of hunting or sport shooting does not outweigh the social costs of potential misuse is a value judgment. And that value judgment is the same in practice as to whether the value of alcohol outweighs it's consequences, or the value of the internal combustion engine and the fossil fuel economy outweighs it's environmental damage.
You may not like the comparison because the firearm is designed for 'offense' and the vehicle is designed for transportation, but the calculus of benefit to cost is the same. You just don't agree with me on which of those terms is greater.
The point is, that this is a discussion with 30 pages and that you're a bit out of your element here .
What I tried to say is, that despite the effort some display by presenting their fancy 'toys' as purely 'defensive' weapons it makes it seem like they are not such a big thing, they are rather harmless, naw, they are just like every other day to day object. Like a kitchen knive, a base ball bat or what ever.
And that in my opinion, is mental gymnastics. Because we're talking here about guns, fire arms and not kitchen knives, cars or baseball bats. If those would be comparable, than we would see the US military runing around with kitchen knives or base ball bats instead of rifles. But that's not what they use to perform their combat. They only use the most effective 'tools' if you so well. And that's a fire arm - among many other weapon systems, but we're not talking about artillery or tanks here.
People forget way to often, why we find weapons actually fascinating in the first place why they have such a vast culture behind it. And that is exactly because they are also dangerous objects. If we forget that, then we get a situation like in the US with their shitty gun culture where they become mundane objects and where it is acceptable that some lunatic can gun down 59 people and hurt 500 others.
.What I tried to say is, that despite the effort some display by presenting their fancy 'toys' as purely 'defensive' weapons it makes it seem like they are not such a big thing, they are rather harmless, naw, they are just like every other day to day object. Like a kitchen knive, a base ball bat or what ever.
And that in my opinion, is mental gymnastics. Because we're talking here about guns, fire arms and not kitchen knives, cars or baseball bats. If those would be comparable, than we would see the US military runing around with kitchen knives or base ball bats instead of rifles. But that's not what they use to perform their combat. They only use the most effective 'tools' if you so well. And that's a fire arm - among many other weapon systems, but we're not talking about artillery or tanks here.
People forget way to often, why we find weapons actually fascinating in the first place why they have such a vast culture behind it. And that is exactly because they are also dangerous objects. If we forget that, then we get a situation like in the US with their shitty gun culture where they become mundane objects and where it is acceptable that some lunatic can gun down 59 people and hurt 500 others.
Last edited: