So you are a retard. Only possible explenation.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Crni's all about the internet discussion board drama, aren't you? All emo and shiet.
Anyhoo, looks like NRA is starting to lose ground. But it could be just a ruse. Banning bumpstocks isn't going to solve the whole problem, especially with folks now hoarding them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/06/did-we-all-just-get-played-by-the-nra
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.
It's true that I am out of my element in the sense that I am a middle-aged gun-owning American on a predominantly eurocentric forum with profoundly different views on culture and the role of government. I am certain if it were put to a vote here, I'd lose. I accept the reality of the venue I am on. As an actual American citizen, though, I am more uniquely in my element when it comes to my understanding of our culture, laws, and beliefs surrounding both sides of this issue. If the totality of your view on this issue is expressed within your characterization of 'the US with their shitty gun culture', then we don't have much to talk about at all. If you want to understand things from the perspective of one actual gun-owning American instead of making assumptions about hypothetical ones, then we have plenty to talk about. I'm not upset either way.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
So you're saying we need to get rid of emotions? When people feel bad when their relatives go to a, say, a country music concert and never come home then that is just "emotion" and we need to get rid of it? In your ideal world people are like Terminators, loaded with guns with zero emotions?
The thing about guns for defense these days is that we live in an age where non lethal defense tools exist, guns are totally outdated unless by defense you mean try to kill someone.
There are all kinds of things for protection that are specifically designed not to kill: Tasers, Stun Guns and Stun Batons, Pepper Spray, Bean Bag Guns, Pepper Guns that shoot the liquid much farther and there are even pepper spray guns that shoot projectiles with pepper spray inside of them that not only have 10 times the reach of normal pepper spray cans but, hurt when they hit the target and also explode in a pepper spray cloud. And probably many other things I have no idea about since I am not informed about this subject (non lethal defense tools) much.
Then there is also rubber bullets, why are weapons for protection always or almost always loaded with normal lethal ammo? How many people out there that want to protect their home are using rubber bullets instead? I bet there aren't many.
There are all kinds of things for protection that are specifically designed not to kill: Tasers, Stun Guns and Stun Batons, Pepper Spray, Bean Bag Guns, Pepper Guns that shoot the liquid much farther and there are even pepper spray guns that shoot projectiles with pepper spray inside of them that not only have 10 times the reach of normal pepper spray cans but, hurt when they hit the target and also explode in a pepper spray cloud. And probably many other things I have no idea about since I am not informed about this subject (non lethal defense tools) much.
Then there is also rubber bullets, why are weapons for protection always or almost always loaded with normal lethal ammo? How many people out there that want to protect their home are using rubber bullets instead? I bet there aren't many.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
When your police tells you "Look guys, you better start arming yourself for your own health's sake" then maybe it's time to move to a safer region?
A very large part of what we use today was innovated & designed due to war constraints. From medicine, over GPS to your microwave, much was designed for the war effort. If you're going to say that guns are evil and should be removed because they were initially designed to shoot stuff, then are you going to say the same for all the other innovations? All these things can equally be used for good.
Because a weapon is an inert object without purpose unless WE give it one? Doesn't matter if it's a gun or a dragon dildo. Everything can be used defensively or in assault?
You need to take a step back and analyze your reasoning, because you're making several mental jumps while claiming it's Johnny & myself which are "making mistakes".
Either you need to decide if your standpoint is that the intended purpose of the object is what defines it being offensive or not, or you need to stop saying all firearms are offensive by nature. Because those two things are mutually exclusive and require mental gymnastics to combine.
There are a huge number of guns intently designed for sporting & competition use. From Anschütz olympic competition single shit .22LR rifles to IPSC oriented pistols like the CZ75 SP01 Shadow. These guns either have not the capacity (single shot) or have removed safety features required to be used in a carry or professional context. They are clearly designed for sporting purposes. So at the same time you cannot keep claiming all guns are offensive by design.
I've been arguing for multiple pages already that the gun you posted can be both, depending on its actual usage and on the intent of its owner?
I'm afraid you're simply going in circles here and Johnny's point is quite concise and correct.
Guns can be defensive, offensive, decorative, sporting (hunting or competition), investments, historical, collectable, of scientific or engineering value, etc.
There's just so much more to guns than what you're willing to take into account.
It will never be acceptable to us and we will never forget the cost of our rights and freedoms? But taking away the rights and protection of the innocent to punish the guilty is NOT justice.
We (the pro-gun) have made our value judgement on this and accept the cost of our freedom. You are free to argue for the other side of the discussion, but you cannot claim we are wrong. There is no right and wrong in this. It's a value judgement, not a scientific truth.
Edit:
Why do american cops have both if less lethal tools are sufficient?
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Much much easier to get guns in US than in Europe overall. Why do we have license to drive a car? Oh wait, it's because otherwise there would be a whole bunch of accidents. Why not the same with guns? Because guns are as essential to folks as cars? No, actually they are much much less essential. So...yea.
You want to play that game? Ok, let's play that game.
First off, in the USA, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. It's meant to defend yourself, not only from others, but also from the state. Now, it's going to be difficult to defend yourself from a tyrannical government, if that same government has a list of gun owners and the guns which they own. So by default, there can be no registration or license. Hell, even with the basic background checks which they have currently have in place, the government is already overstepping its bound because the rules state the ATF can only keep those records for a few months. As it turns out, the ATF is keeping those records indefinitely. So even something as simple as that, the government is failing to carry out. And you want everyone to trust the government for everything else?
Secondly, yes, let's make gun ownership and concealed carry permits the same as drivers licenses:
1) CC owners are already forced to take a course in most jurisdictions. So nothing changes there.
2) CC owners already have to take an exam to prove competence. So nothing changes there.
3) Most states do not have "shall issue" rules, which are in place for driving licenses. This means that anyone who requests the permit & meets the minimal requirements gets it. So sure, let's make concealed carry permits "shall issue".
4) Known criminals can get drivers licenses legally. I'm going to guess you don't want them to have gun permits?
Congratz, you have now loosened concealed carry laws for most american states (even if we disregard n°4).
Maybe you should stop making stupid comparisons and stop using platitudes?
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Well Trump is pretty tyrannical, right? So why haven't they shot him yet?
One can buy a gun without any 'tests', legal or of course illegal. And one can conceal carry without any 'licence' to do so. So...yea.
Btw NRA isn't a 'national' organisation, it's a the lobbying and propaganda office of the US gun industry.
Also this isn't a 'game', tens of thousands of people die every year in US alone because of a 'hobby'.
One can buy a gun without any 'tests', legal or of course illegal. And one can conceal carry without any 'licence' to do so. So...yea.
Btw NRA isn't a 'national' organisation, it's a the lobbying and propaganda office of the US gun industry.
Also this isn't a 'game', tens of thousands of people die every year in US alone because of a 'hobby'.
Last edited:
Because they are cops and not civilians. They have to put themselves in harm's way when they raid gangs and other criminal/organized crime houses or "bases", their job is to risk their lives each day because they target dangerous individuals that can attack them with knives or guns too. Civilians do not have to deal with these dangers because usually they stay away from criminal houses/organized crime. Also notice how you say they have both. Which means that they only use the lethal weapons when they really have to, for most of the time they use the non lethal.
In some countries including the Republic of Ireland, the UK (except Northern Ireland), Norway, Iceland, and New Zealand police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to involve gunfire from the opposing force. So there are some countries that have police forces without guns unless they expect enemy fire.
I don't see what you mean with your question, by that logic, since in the USA people can legally own guns there shouldn't be police forces. Because everyone can protect themselves if they want. It's their right to do so, so why does police officers have to risk their lives to protect people that can protect themselves? It's nonsense.
Last edited:
Three points:
Feel free to tell me where you live and how it is there. I don't know where you live, but I bet criminals still commit gun crime. At a far lower rate, perhaps, but nonetheless still there. Criminals do criminal things.
The NRA is indeed a powerful lobbying mechanism, and the gun industry most assuredly uses it to advance their purposes. But it's real power isn't the money; it's the ability to mobilize it's voting members. If the NRA disappeared tomorrow, the harsh truth is that another organization would spring up to take it's place, and both the individual voters and the industry money would flow to it. The NRA doesn't represent the interest of all gun voters on all issues, and it acts ham-handedly on both sides of the issue on multiple times. But it's ability to concentrate the gun owning public to take action around a central issue is what makes it effective.
I like bourbon. Alcohol also kills tens of thousands of people in my country every year. I have no intent on giving up my enjoyment of it.
I like taking my kids swimming. Pools kill thousands of people in my country every year. I have no intent to give up swimming.
Your comeback is going to be that these items are 'not designed to kill' or 'have other uses then killing'. And your right. But they have real costs in human lives nonetheless.
Your next argument is that they aren't used intentionally to take human life. And your right. But they have real costs in human lives nonetheless.
Your third argument is that they don't take human lives in mass like guns can. And your right. But they have real costs in human lives nonetheless.
We make calculations of cost versus value all the time, both as individuals and as a society. Firearms feel different to some people because the harm, when it is present, is most often intentional. It's the trolley cart experiment writ large. We are more sensitive to acts of commission versus omission.
My question: Is the value of a human life greater when it is taken by intention rather then accident?
I hate to play that cuard, but in the wake of 59 dead people and more than 500 wounded, I think you have a very hard stance on defending 'firearms' as defensive weapons.
I am sorry, I am just not buying that reasoning, when you consider the lethality of them. This is what weapons are made for, this is their design. To shoot at something.
And I find this atitude of "naw, guns are every day objects you can do soooooooo much more than just shooting!" very worrysome. I mean can you at least admitt that the US has a very problematic gun culture?
Out of curiosity, at what point did I say that firearms aren't designed to shoot something?
'Problematic' is an interesting word in my country at the moment. It is a culture-wars shorthand for 'This is something I don't like, and you shouldn't like it either'. It is most frequently used in a way to imply that any defense of a particular thing, in whole or in part, is not appropriate given the negative components of that thing. It is a way to shut down an argument without having to get mired in the argument, in part by implying that identity politics are on your side.
I also wonder what the extent of your concern is that you find our problems so worrying, since you are not one of us, and not subject to our laws or your perceptions of violence on our streets. Is it truly a global concern for human welfare, and if so, how does that manifest in the goings on of your own country and culture? I am curious as to if your ability to judge your own culture is as keen as your ability to judge mine.
'Problematic' is an interesting word in my country at the moment. It is a culture-wars shorthand for 'This is something I don't like, and you shouldn't like it either'. It is most frequently used in a way to imply that any defense of a particular thing, in whole or in part, is not appropriate given the negative components of that thing. It is a way to shut down an argument without having to get mired in the argument, in part by implying that identity politics are on your side.
I also wonder what the extent of your concern is that you find our problems so worrying, since you are not one of us, and not subject to our laws or your perceptions of violence on our streets. Is it truly a global concern for human welfare, and if so, how does that manifest in the goings on of your own country and culture? I am curious as to if your ability to judge your own culture is as keen as your ability to judge mine.
A guy just killed 59 people, and the US has a serious issue with such incidents. We're not talking about over sensitive kids on collegue campuses.
The US has a serious problem with the kind of gun culture they created which was not always that way, when you look at the history of the NRA and how weapons have been viewed by the public over the last 80 years.
Look, I am not even here telling you the government should take your weapons away ...
So? I am not allowed to have an opinion, because I am not american? You're not asking Suaside why he cares, as he's also not an american ...
You're right. I didn't ask Suaside why he cares, and I don't intend to. He doesn't think we have a 'shitty US gun culture' or that we are all 'gun nuts'. He understands why a person could enjoy using firearms, and want to retain that possibility, even in the face of a horrible tragedy. I am not in the habit of challenging people on issues we are in agreement with.
I've never forgotten what Anders Breivik did, nor the system of justice in Norway that permits him to live and rejoin society in 20-25 years. Both his action and it's consequences baffle and sadden me, and I morn the loss of innocent lives greatly. I also don't lump all Norwegian anti-globalists into the same category, or feel his actions are particularly representative of a broad aspect of Scandinavian society. I'm also a parent, and the tragedy at Sandy Hook weighs heavily on my soul. I never forget these things, and view them as a tragedy. I have tremendous sympathy for the victims and the survivors. But despite the heavy cost for my personal liberty, I enjoy that liberty nonetheless. The sentiments here, some of which are yours, have a tendency to reject all of that nuance, and simply lump me and the millions like me into a category of 'gun nut' who is either willfully blind to the cost of these freedoms, or lacking in understanding or sympathy for others. It is that response that makes change and conversation so difficult. And make no mistake, my side uses the same tactics in opposition. I'm actually trying actively not to do that. I've tried to put all my cards on the table and speak plainly about my position. I am trying to be conscious of my biases. Are you trying to do the same? If you want to understand, or to be understood yourself, I am here for conversation. If you want to condemn, I understand it, and I will leave you to it. Again, I am not looking to sell my position to you, merely to explain it honestly.
It's easy to stand in judgement of a culture from the outside. If you told me where you live, I could probably make many judgments about yours. And you would resent it, even if there were aspects you might otherwise agree with. I am not going to do that. But I hope you understand why I might be tempted to do that based on your statements. You don't seem like a bad guy, and I welcome your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
I've never forgotten what Anders Breivik did, nor the system of justice in Norway that permits him to live and rejoin society in 20-25 years. Both his action and it's consequences baffle and sadden me, and I morn the loss of innocent lives greatly. I also don't lump all Norwegian anti-globalists into the same category, or feel his actions are particularly representative of a broad aspect of Scandinavian society. I'm also a parent, and the tragedy at Sandy Hook weighs heavily on my soul. I never forget these things, and view them as a tragedy. I have tremendous sympathy for the victims and the survivors. But despite the heavy cost for my personal liberty, I enjoy that liberty nonetheless. The sentiments here, some of which are yours, have a tendency to reject all of that nuance, and simply lump me and the millions like me into a category of 'gun nut' who is either willfully blind to the cost of these freedoms, or lacking in understanding or sympathy for others. It is that response that makes change and conversation so difficult. And make no mistake, my side uses the same tactics in opposition. I'm actually trying actively not to do that. I've tried to put all my cards on the table and speak plainly about my position. I am trying to be conscious of my biases. Are you trying to do the same? If you want to understand, or to be understood yourself, I am here for conversation. If you want to condemn, I understand it, and I will leave you to it. Again, I am not looking to sell my position to you, merely to explain it honestly.
It's easy to stand in judgement of a culture from the outside. If you told me where you live, I could probably make many judgments about yours. And you would resent it, even if there were aspects you might otherwise agree with. I am not going to do that. But I hope you understand why I might be tempted to do that based on your statements. You don't seem like a bad guy, and I welcome your opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
Last edited:
*Shrugs* depends on the case and what you're saying about it.
Germany isn't a perfect nation, none is and I can see the logic people present when they say German is somewhat of a 'nanny state'.
It's just that there can be no doubt that the US gun culture kills people. If you can accept that, more power to you, you're at least honest.
But many weapon owners aren't, they could not even agree to that part or what the NRA has been doing for the last 30-40 years which is basically just the political voice of the gun manufacturers.
It is one thing to be convinced of your ideals and principles, which I respect hence why I also respect Suside. But you can't say that about everyone, particularly those that don't see how they are simply manipulated by the weapon industry that is killing counltess of people, not for liberty of freedom, but because it sells guns. And after each massacre the selling of guns sky rockets ... in fear the gonverment will take them away.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I'm from Finland. Some time ago we started having school shootings and other big shootings, on a rate of one per year. The school shooters were 'inspired' by the Columbine school shootings. So it's a 'fashion' I'd prefer we didn't have here.
To answer your question, yes. When someone is murdered, or in the case of Vegas when ~60 people are murdered by a single assailant, it is a bigger deal than a single case of accident where a person, say, slips on a banana peel or something and dies. And reducing these both is not mutually exclusive, it's very much mutually inclusive. The same people who are worried about, say, alcohol deaths are the same people worried about gun deaths.
And the same people who belittle shootings like Vegas, Orland, Sandy Hook, etc. are the same people who belittle alcohol deaths, car accident deaths, etc. I like people who are alive and well and not full of bullet holes or dead from car accidents or dead from alcohol etc. You seem to disagree.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Most of this shit could have been prevented if there were metal detectors all over the fucking place. I actually read a conspiracy theory that said that is what the "Deep State" is pushing for. I haven't followed the story closely (the next shooting will roll around too quickly to bother) but how did he get so many guns into the hotel? Seems it wasn't how easy he got the guns, but how easy it was to set up camp and pick off targets. Crni, you are asking the world's largest gun manufacturer/exporter to simply turn off the money. It ain't happening. Count on more people to get blown away in heavily populated areas. If they want to survive in this new USA I suggest they arm themselves/prepare to die when traveling near schools, hotels, stadiums, post offices, parks, streets, stores, homes, basically anywhere.
If it isn't Joe Bob mad about his small dick shooting up the local mall, it is Hassan Jihad gunning down the local gay club. Take away Hassan's gun he drives a truck with bombs. Joe Bob will just buy the guns anyway. Crni, you don't know shit about the US. I can buy a gun from any dude in this town. No checks. Make laws to stop me. I still buy the guns. This argument has been done before (on this site) with the same people over and over with the same solutions. I can mod my AR to fire full auto. If it came down to it you can make your own firearm like the bastards do in Afghanistan.
If it isn't Joe Bob mad about his small dick shooting up the local mall, it is Hassan Jihad gunning down the local gay club. Take away Hassan's gun he drives a truck with bombs. Joe Bob will just buy the guns anyway. Crni, you don't know shit about the US. I can buy a gun from any dude in this town. No checks. Make laws to stop me. I still buy the guns. This argument has been done before (on this site) with the same people over and over with the same solutions. I can mod my AR to fire full auto. If it came down to it you can make your own firearm like the bastards do in Afghanistan.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Yes, because a terrorist is JUST as easy to stop when they are using a dinky knife, homemade weapons or vehicles, and have the same lethality, than with a fucking AR15.
I don't think that they should be as banned as the UK does, which is banning even butter knives. But to think that they are in ANY way "needed" baffles me. You've got a police for something. Protestors shouldn't be allowed to be marching with guns, fuck's sake.
I don't think that they should be as banned as the UK does, which is banning even butter knives. But to think that they are in ANY way "needed" baffles me. You've got a police for something. Protestors shouldn't be allowed to be marching with guns, fuck's sake.
But it was Smalldick Joe Bob. It is most of the time.