But do you not believe the NRA should display more outrage about this? Weapon owners geting shoot for being .. .weapon owners?
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Since I am in the other side of the world and good news about it are scarce... But from what I understand, the murderer had already stopped his shooting and was going away from the church when he was shot. And he still drove away and then decided to commit suicide. So from what I understand, him being shot didn't really saved more lives in that situation since he had already stopped his shooting in the church (wasn't it something related to him thinking his grandmother was there and he wanted to kill her or something?).
Yes, there is the chance that he would get on his car and go and shoot people somewhere else after that, or go and try and find his grandmother to kill her. But we don't know, I do say he got what he deserved though, but I don't see for sure how him being shot after he committed his mass shooting actually saved lives at that instance (maybe it saved future lives, but we will never know, but like I said, he got what he deserved).
Good thing that conversation is cropped, because that point is ridiculously easy to debunk.
No, nobody wants to get rid of all guns.
Anyway, you seem to be really fond of arguing against very convenient strawmen, flip off the handle easily and not really interested in actual arguing since you know you yourself to be right already. If you don't care about contributing properly to this thread, how about you just ignore it? Be comfortable in the fact that your vast intellect overshadows everyone else and that the lowly scrubs around can't understand your perfect arguments.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I don't think there's anything wrong with, say, wanting to live in an area where guns would be prohibited. For example a part of a town or city, or a neighbourhood, or some area where one lives. What function do guns have in a, say, a city or town? What's the purpose? Most often it is to commit crimes. So yea, I don't really see a problem with wanting to live in a gun-free area.
I think there is a big difference in the mindsets of the pro- and contra folks.
On the one hand you have those who want as little interference from the outside as possible, to be as self-reliant as possible. When crime rates are rising and neighbourhoods aren't safe anymore and you have break-ins turning into murder every other week, the solution then is to help yourself by protecting yourself, and that is done best by getting a firearm. And when all the criminals also have firearms, well, you get more and bigger firearms and, most importantly, better training. And there is less reliance on the government to help you in ay situation. If your business fails or you're out of a job or whatever, you don't except to get much support, you deal with it yourself.
On the other hand you have a mindset more common in Europe. Historically, except for very few countries here, guns and weapons have never been widely available to civilians, because in monarchies you kinda don't want your populace to be too well armed, and the way wars worked back then didn't make dedicated weapons too useful in the hands of civilians. So historically people here are used to rely on the state and the society to keep you safe. Since there are fewer guns in circulation the chance that a mugger or burglar has a gun is much lower. There are also more safety nets in society. You're not immediately screwed when you lose a job, and there are lots of ways the government can help you in lots of situations. But that comes with downsides. Heavier regulation almost everywhere, you're just not as free. For the most part it won't be very noticable. You have to bring your car to inspection more often, you can't camp out in the woods wherever you want, and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to own a gun.
In order for a society to not need guns and self-reliant protection (or at least not as much) there needs to be more public safety in terms of social security and public security. But that always comes with decrease in personal liberty. The situation in the US is not so bad that it would be worth it to the majority.
In the ideal society everyone could get all the guns they wanted, but nobody would actually need them for self-defense because there'd be no need for self-defense. But this sort of post-scarcity utopia is very far away. Or even impossible.
On the one hand you have those who want as little interference from the outside as possible, to be as self-reliant as possible. When crime rates are rising and neighbourhoods aren't safe anymore and you have break-ins turning into murder every other week, the solution then is to help yourself by protecting yourself, and that is done best by getting a firearm. And when all the criminals also have firearms, well, you get more and bigger firearms and, most importantly, better training. And there is less reliance on the government to help you in ay situation. If your business fails or you're out of a job or whatever, you don't except to get much support, you deal with it yourself.
On the other hand you have a mindset more common in Europe. Historically, except for very few countries here, guns and weapons have never been widely available to civilians, because in monarchies you kinda don't want your populace to be too well armed, and the way wars worked back then didn't make dedicated weapons too useful in the hands of civilians. So historically people here are used to rely on the state and the society to keep you safe. Since there are fewer guns in circulation the chance that a mugger or burglar has a gun is much lower. There are also more safety nets in society. You're not immediately screwed when you lose a job, and there are lots of ways the government can help you in lots of situations. But that comes with downsides. Heavier regulation almost everywhere, you're just not as free. For the most part it won't be very noticable. You have to bring your car to inspection more often, you can't camp out in the woods wherever you want, and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to own a gun.
In order for a society to not need guns and self-reliant protection (or at least not as much) there needs to be more public safety in terms of social security and public security. But that always comes with decrease in personal liberty. The situation in the US is not so bad that it would be worth it to the majority.
In the ideal society everyone could get all the guns they wanted, but nobody would actually need them for self-defense because there'd be no need for self-defense. But this sort of post-scarcity utopia is very far away. Or even impossible.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Fuck me, almost all of the Manufacturer Radio from Borderlands 2 applies too often:
As for Alt Right, Crni said it. Fascism and traits of it.
Antifa and those wankers are, if not just antagonistic cunts, extremists of left. Communists and the like are kind of out the frame, as their ideology in practice would rule out any "left" and "right", but as socialism is a step needed for it, which still plays in the democracy field, then it's boxed in the Left.
As for Alt Right, Crni said it. Fascism and traits of it.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Hass,
I'd say Americans do rely on their country/government in many ways. They rely on their country to, for example, bomb foreign nations, get cheap oil for the gas guzzler cars, produce cheap low quality food, zone previously uninhabited areas for houses/roads/car parks/malls/toxic waste areas/etc.
So yea, Americans do rely on their country/government in many ways. They don't have UHC, but still.
I'd say Americans do rely on their country/government in many ways. They rely on their country to, for example, bomb foreign nations, get cheap oil for the gas guzzler cars, produce cheap low quality food, zone previously uninhabited areas for houses/roads/car parks/malls/toxic waste areas/etc.
So yea, Americans do rely on their country/government in many ways. They don't have UHC, but still.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Doi
. Yeah bombing foreign countries has never ever drawn protest in the US and is of great benefit to it's citizens how? There's an abundance of foreign gas stations here (Russian, Venezuelan, Dutch, British etc.) there is no nationalized oil. The government doesn't run General Mills. Man, by all means be critical of the US' policies, but you have so much of a hard-on for it you're trying a little to desperately and monomaniacly. Like some counterpart to Alex Jones.Your posting demonstrates that you live in a bubble of your own ignorance. Get help son.
Open carry may be legal in some places, but things like brandishing a firearm (like aiming at people) is utterly illegal.
Have you ever looked at the videos of the people shot? It's no secret that cops sometimes fuck up, but most of the time when a "poor black kid" gets shot for brandishing a toy, it's because he drew a fake firearm and aimed it at a cop after having been yelled at to put his hands up three fucking times.
I mean stuff like this:
Sorry, but that's a darwin award right there.
I don't see how you can think that shooting was unjustified. The cop retreated multiple times, clearly issuing commands which were not followed and then the idiot fake drew a gun from his belt.
What did he expect was going to happen?
And this is one of the many shootings which caused extreme uproar from BLM...
I can only hope that with future improvements in body cams etc, unjustified shootings will be brought down to a minimum possible.
Gun rights are something immediately visible and felt throughout society.
Gun rights defenders are also as diverse as the citizens of the nation they are part of. Some can be fascists, some may be hippies. They are very divided on political subjects. This is why you'll almost never see guns alone be a deciding factor for whom to vote in many countries.
The only country which comes close is the USA. This is because to them it represents way more than sport and recreation.
You can call it a strawman, but it's weird that people like yourself that put the "greater good" above personal freedom fail to recognize that smoking, passive smoking and alcohol cause a magnitude more deaths than firearms do.
You are perfectly fine with stripping people of their freedoms because a minority of people abuse that freedom, yet you fail to use the same reasoning to much more insidious killers in our society.
If there was an actual vocal majority (note: vocal is important here) which was antigun in the USA, the laws would have been changed a long time ago. I do not believe that this vocal majority exists, and this may be in part due to the campaigns from the gun lobby, but I doubt it.
As for your reference to europe, here we (gun enthusiasts) are very clearly a minority and it clearly shows. Over the past 15 years that I've been into firearms, my gun rights have been significantly curtailed THREE separate times by "reformed" and strengthened gun laws.
I keep hearing in this thread that "we don't want to ban all guns", but surely you can see the writing on the damn wall? Our freedoms are taken away step by step and never given back. You may not personally feel that all guns need to disappear, but soon enough we'll end up like Singapore or Japan.
Sure, but that's quite a european point of view.
If I were to write down my "perfect" gun laws for europe, they would be very different from what I'd write down for the USA.
The vast majority of murders aren't mass shooting from a hotel room... They are up close and personal.
Hell, it's quite telling that the most common murder weapon in many western countries is a friggin' screwdriver.
No, the laser is instant and barely visible unless computer assisted.
Shooting a laser rifle is also a lot easier than shooting an actual rifle.
I may be struck by the very blindness you're trying to accuse me of, but I have no clue what point you're trying to make. Can you rephrase your statement so that I can actually understand it? Your sentence structure may make sense in your native tongue, but in english you're making no sense.
I don't decide for other people what is right and wrong, beyond the basic tenets of human rights.
The Catalan people have no legal means of declaring their independence because it is banned by Spanish law. Even if the Spanish parliament voted 100% for independence, it would still be illegal because the Spanish constitution does not allow it.
So if you leave people no legal means, they will find illegal means. At the moment, they chose the political path. It's not clear if they will eventually resort to violence like ETA etc did in the Basque region.
Personally, I don't support the Catalan cause, but I'm also not against it. I think that in the long term it makes sense though for current nations to break up into smaller countries, under the umbrella of the European Union. The stronger the EU becomes, the less sense current countries make.
It is.
Think about it, taxes are simple. Taxes are money taken away from you, by the state. The state has a monopoly on violence. And it will use this to force you to pay taxes. It is basically putting a gun to your head and telling you that if you fail to pay taxes, you'll be locked away or hurt.
If you, for whatever reason, feel that the taxes which you are forced to pay are not properly used, than by definition, you are dealing with a tyrannical government. Obviously, that doesn't mean you're right, but to you, it will be a tyrannical government. And when enough people believe this, and democratic means fail, that's when violent revolution happens.
Pro gun:
Self-reliance
Not punishing the innocent for something the guilty have done
Sport
History
Engineering
Anti gun:
Being fine with punishing the innocent to achieve "the greater good"
Belief in the ability of the state to protect its citizens
Belief in a state monopoly on violence
Suspicious of fellow citizens
That's fine for you to want, but if you think you should force this on people who don't agree and already live there, then we are going to have a heated argument...
Nice anecdotal evidence, like as I ever made the claim that cops aren't humans and always make perfect choices, besides it's also not the point I wanted to make, so here again:
Should the NRA not be more outraged, at least about those cases where a cop cleary shoot someone who was a legal weapon owner? There are also plenty examples of that if you care to look on youtube.
It''s pretty evident though that many gun-righters here in this topic at least, share a common mindset when it comes to their fetish though.
Sorry, but I do not see a reason to discuss this point any further unless you show me where a pack of ciggaretes killed 59 people and harmed 500+ in a crowd. Besides, both Tobacco and Alcohol saw a lot of changes, trough educating the public on their dangers, the many law suits where people sued them and so on. In Germany the adds for alcohol and tobacco have been restricted for example, there are a lot of regulations in place, particularly regarding minors, driving etc. It is literaly heavier regulated in many US states than guns ...
And again, where did I say I approve of alcohol or cigarettes? My father was a drunk alcoholic who destroyed our family. If I had any say in it, I would bann that shit - that's because I am emotional about it and it would be a purely emotional decision. But I am not so stupid to not see the effects prohibition had on alcohol, since the US had if you want experimented with it. And the result was, it simply didn't work. It made it worse for a lot of people.
Where as we have at least evidence that some gun controll can do a lot of good, particularly if paired with other regulations, some of which Hass has namend and which help in social stability, like reducing income inequality for example. And again no one, NO ONE(!) here made the argument that guns should be banned entirely! But you constantly bring that Boogeyman up and it's a bit tiresome.
I am NOT thinking in extremes here. But it is evident that this absolute neo-liberal dream of super-freedom simply kills people.
Dude, lobbysts today pretty much write their own laws which they get passed trough congress (and not just in the US, in Europe too).
On the other side you have the population which does support better gun controll, to what degree? Is debatable, the harsher the controll the less people support it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647
Last edited:
Dat wall-of-text, tho
It's not impossible in the same sense as doing the splits on two moving trucks while juggling 10 hedgehogs in one hand and masturbating with the other is not impossible.
It's not far from illegal. It's literally illegal by law for civilians to own fully automatic weapons with the possibility of exceptions in specific cases, namely historical weapons for collectors. The existence of exceptions does not mean there's no rule.
It's not impossible in the same sense as doing the splits on two moving trucks while juggling 10 hedgehogs in one hand and masturbating with the other is not impossible.
I'm going to let you guess how many of those collectors and their guns are registered with the government and what would happen to their licenses if they would show any kind of violent behaviour.I'm going to let you guess how commonly violent crime is committed by those collectors.
TheGM
The voice of reason
He's at it again.
Meanwhile.
Looks like they are starting to propose car control now too.
Ban cars because cars can be used as weapons therefore ban cars.(warning it's a buzzfeed link)
Most gun-lovers here seem to share the mindset of libertarian almost neo-liberal values.
Republican is a party and conservative is a philosophy, and they are both pretty broad. There is a lot of crossover between libertarianism and the Republican party at the margins. The libertarian candidate for US President was a former Repubican governor. Libertarians like small government and maximum privacy rights, and so do many Republicans. The differentiation is usually to what degree they take these positions.
I am what is known as a fiscal conservative, in the sense that I like to conserve both my firearms and my money. I like a government that is as small as necessary to keep society functional, and use the minimum amount of my tax dollars necessary to do so. I haven't been well served by the Republican party in a long time in this regard, but I know I am better served then I would be by the Democratic party. Such is life in a two-party system; one often has to grit their teeth and make hard choices.
There are moral conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and even conservative Democrats. In the same sense, there are liberal Republicans, budget hawks, military hawks, and any number of other derivatives with different opinions on the size, focus, or role of the Government in other people's lives. Again, one paints with a broad brush in a two party system.
I am what is known as a fiscal conservative, in the sense that I like to conserve both my firearms and my money. I like a government that is as small as necessary to keep society functional, and use the minimum amount of my tax dollars necessary to do so. I haven't been well served by the Republican party in a long time in this regard, but I know I am better served then I would be by the Democratic party. Such is life in a two-party system; one often has to grit their teeth and make hard choices.
There are moral conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and even conservative Democrats. In the same sense, there are liberal Republicans, budget hawks, military hawks, and any number of other derivatives with different opinions on the size, focus, or role of the Government in other people's lives. Again, one paints with a broad brush in a two party system.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Doi
Your posting demonstrates that you live in a bubble of your own ignorance. Get help son.
I was talking to Hass. The point was that US citizens rely on their government and nation to do all kinds of things in order to enable their gas guzzler/fast food/gunz'n'ammo - lifestyle. There is nothing 'pioneering' left in the average American, I'd say that the average European is a lot more self sufficient. Having a large pile of guns means you're a crazy gun freak, it doesn't make you 'self-sufficient' in any way, on the contrary.
I have a large pile of guns. I don't particularly think of myself as crazy.
Many people in this thread disagree with me on many positions. I don't think they are crazy either.
Perhaps for your own health, you should disengage for a moment, take a deep breath, and relax. You are very worked up about things that are a.) entirely outside of your control and b.) have a very limited effect on your daily life, in a way that exceeds pretty much everyone else in your camp in this thread. Quite frankly, I am rather glad you do not have a gun, for your own safety as well as those around you.
Many people in this thread disagree with me on many positions. I don't think they are crazy either.
Perhaps for your own health, you should disengage for a moment, take a deep breath, and relax. You are very worked up about things that are a.) entirely outside of your control and b.) have a very limited effect on your daily life, in a way that exceeds pretty much everyone else in your camp in this thread. Quite frankly, I am rather glad you do not have a gun, for your own safety as well as those around you.
TheGM
The voice of reason
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Or what? You'll shoot?
TheGM,
that doesn't make any sense. Not that I expect gun-nuts to make any sense.
Alright, I think @MutantScalper forgot to take his medication again and is going Full MutantScalper, so he gets a nice cozy vacation from this thread as well.
Yeah, don't do the mistake to confuse MutantScalper with the rest of us. He is special.
This comes down to the influence groups like the Tea Party and many other right wingers had on the Republican party.
If you're the kind of 'Republican' that falls under the era of the likes like Reagan and Bush Senior, then you can vote for the Democrats today with a good conscience. As a party the Democrats today, for the most part, are what the Republicans have been in the 1970s. Republicans today have shifted so far to the right on the political spectrum (not talking about Nazis here), that the Democrats filled the role of moderate Republicans.
This comes down to the influence groups like the Tea Party and many other right wingers had on the Republican party.
Last edited: