Gun Control

[Hassknecht]

Yes. That's the point I've been trying to make. Violence is caused by the folk committing it, not the tools that they use.

Indeed. Guns don't kill people.
But they make it really, really easy. In an ideal world I'd be all for free gun ownership, but right now I wouldn't trust the majority with guns. At least not out in the streets with an itchy triggerfinger.
The thing is that at least in the US guns are already way too proliferated, there's no way to get them out of circulation. And since you guys actually like dying of poverty because it's the american dream I don't really see your social disparity becoming any better, either.
So I guess you'll just have to live with it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

what kind of yield are we talking about here?

Thermonuclear weapons would be the coolest,
Like the Mk-14 with 5mt

but ... I think we all can agree that Megaton ranges would be a bit to excessive. But that's debatable.

I personaly like the W-87, so that should be in the 400kt range, aprox. You're getting a lot more bang for your buck, to say it that way. MIRV is simply the way to go. Unless you're a hippster and chose boosters.

Do you agree that we should have access to those?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Straw man of the highest degree.

But I'll answer it anyway. Because you see, unlike guns trucks... wait for it... have OTHER purposes then killing people.

That didn't stop an insane Muslim from using it to kill over eighty people. Why? Because the tool doesn't matter. Also I did a straw man because I thought you were joking and you'd find the joke funny.

Indeed. Guns don't kill people.
But they make it really, really easy. In an ideal world I'd be all for free gun ownership, but right now I wouldn't trust the majority with guns. At least not out in the streets with an itchy triggerfinger.

It's easy to kill folk with or without tools, and as proven with the events in Nice, the twin towers, and every bombing ever, guns aren't even the most efficient way.

The thing is that at least in the US guns are already way too proliferated, there's no way to get them out of circulation.

Agreed

And since you guys actually like dying of poverty because it's the american dream I don't really see your social disparity becoming any better, either.

The thing about American crapitalism is that it's not free enough to allow folk to become richer more freely, and so much of the taxes go towards useless and random crap that "poor" folk get the short end of the stick from the government.

Also, the black culture that's pushed on the African minority in America is violent and fetishizes character flaws like greed, pride and lust.

 

[Dr Fallout]

That didn't stop an insane Muslim from using it to kill over eighty people. Why? Because the tool doesn't matter. Also I did a straw man because I thought you were joking and you'd find the joke funny.

Ah I'm sorry, it's just people actually use that as an argument so I'm more used to seeing people use it as a serious argument.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's easy to kill folk with or without tools, and as proven with the events in Nice, the twin towers, and every bombing ever, guns aren't even the most efficient way.

Part of the problem is, that you can't even talk about guns and the culture around it because everyone becomes super defensive. See, you have here a lot of peole that find weapons actually ... not even to be the biggest problem. And no one here is asking for the perfect solution. But there is a conection between shootings and the gun culture behind it. And yes, someone can take a truck and drive it trough a group of people, and yes someone can take an axe to kill his boss or partner.

But consider this, it is not a truck that is known as the trademark of James Bond.

Weapons are simply cool. Guns are simply exciting! There is no point in denying it. Because they are. We know it. And the gun lovers know it. But things can become a fetish and a love can become unreasonable and unhealthy. Can we at least agree on it that SOME(!) individuals can have an unhealthy obsession with weapons?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Oh yeah that's it too. I'm not being sarcastic, if I'm sounding like it.

 

[Hassknecht]

Thermonuclear weapons would be the coolest,
Like the Mk-14 with 5mt

but ... I think we all can agree that Megaton ranges would be a bit to excessive. But that's debatable.

I personaly like the W-87, so that should be in the 400kt range, aprox. You're getting a lot more bang for your buck, to say it that way. MIRV is simply the way to go. Unless you're a hippster and chose boosters.

Do you agree that we should have access to those?

Hm, but for home defense it's a bit unwieldy. I think the Davy Crockett at least should be free for everyone to purchase. It's reasonably small (but somewhat too unwieldy for concealed carry which should please the bleeding heart libtards) and its blast radius doesn't impinge on the freedom of others (if you fire it on your own ranch in Texas, which is the only measure I accept).

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

I support the open carry of ICBMs.

Are you going to try and rob the guy carrying a giant missile? Maybe you could pickpocket him, but mugging is out of the question.

Does anyone think that the NCR has open carry advocates in the lore?

 

[Throatpunch]

Lets have a look at some figures. Now remember that these figures are homicides and not injuries.

• Last year (2015) in France there were 35 gun homicides, meanwhile in the United States there were 9146 gun Homicides.
• Or another country, the United Kingdom, there were 41 gun homicides in 2015. As I said, in the United States there were 9146.
• One more example, Germany. There were 158 gun homicides. Once again in the United States there were 9146 gun homicides.

Spoiler: Source

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...isGaYvr7durZHJhpLGycs/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0

So gun control works, in countries with gun control compared to countries without it, gun crime statistics are very different. Gun murders are much higher, thousands higher, in countries without gun control. This shows that gun control is working, and it is necessary.

And using mass shootings is not an argument.
They are rarities, and saying because on the rare occasion a mass shooting happens that gun control isn't working is not an argument. Its like saying that because there is an occasional snowstorm global warming isn't happening.

The majority of gun related crimes (especially homicide) is black on black (and sometimes black on white) violence in majority black areas. A lot of the time involving gang related activity. So it's not an epidemic of random people walking around and lighting up schools all the time. It's generally blacks shooting other blacks. I'm going to get crucified here but that's what the stats show. Don't shoot the messenger.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci.../2015/12/15-guns-race-different-worlds-reeves
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/charleston-shooting-obama-race-crime
http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

This wouldn't be an issue if you tried to make a fairer, more equal and prosperous society instead of handing out guns like ice creams.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Because that would stop people from killing themselves.

It would lead to less people dying, most likely. Keep in mind that there are many more suicide attempts than successful suicides. It's a misconception that all people who try to commit suicide actually want to die and are hellbent on doing so. More often than not it's an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment decision and the longer people have to think about it, the less likely are they to go through with it. Shooting yourself takes a split-second and is instantly fatal most of the time, there's no time for second thoughts. Method is a major factor in suicide mortality and limiting accent to effective means is a way to reduce deaths from suicides. It's still very important to address all risk factors, of course.

 

[TheGM]

It would lead to less people dying, most likely. Keep in mind that there are many more suicide attempts than successful suicides. It's a misconception that all people who try to commit suicide actually want to die and are hellbent on doing so. More often than not it's an impulsive, spur-of-the-moment decision and the longer people have to think about it, the less likely are they to go through with it. Shooting yourself takes a split-second and is instantly fatal most of the time, there's no time for second thoughts. Method is a major factor in suicide mortality[/ur] and limiting accent to effective means is a way to reduce deaths from suicides. It's still very important to address all risk factors, of course.

I'd rather see more help available to people who have thoughts of suicide and depression since that would help way more people than banning guns ever would.

 

[MutantScalper]

You've abandoned all logic haven't you?

The American government does not benefit from this definition, nor does it commit the crimes we are talking about. The Joseon government does on both.

Is there a role for the US government when it comes to the setting of laws and rules about the gun industry selling it's products domestically and abroad? What is the relationship of individual US politicians to the NRA, gun industry, etc.? Do they get money from them? Are they coerced by the NRA/gun industry? Also, what is the attitude of US federal goverment to the so called military industrial complex that produces all the weapons for use in US, by the US goverment and for selling abroad?

 

[Buxbaum666]

I'd rather see more help available to people who have thoughts of suicide and depression since that would help way more people than banning guns ever would.

No question but it's not mutually exclusive. A combined approach could save more lives.

 

[TheGM]

No question but it's not mutually exclusive. A combined approach could save more lives.

No entirely true. Gun ownership has prevented deaths before and with a gun bad people would find themselves in situations were they could die because they lack access to a firearm.

 

[Izak]

Gun ownership has prevented deaths before

Gun ownership has also caused a lot of deaths, be it from accidental shootings or from mediated attacks. Without bothering to check the statistics I'm gonna go ahead and say guns (those things made for killing things) have killed more people then they have saved.

with a gun bad people would find themselves in situations where they could die because they lack access to a firearm.

I'm also going to go ahead and say that events where death is certain unless you own a gun aren't very common and that the population of gun toting maniacs wouldn't really be affected by these, presumably, extremely rare situations.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Is there a role for the US government when it comes to the setting of laws and rules about the gun industry selling it's products domestically and abroad?

All governments have a role in it.

What is the relationship of individual US politicians to the NRA, gun industry, etc.?

Those democrats are in control right now, so most of them are anti-gun. Including Barack the Butcher.

Also, what is the attitude of US federal goverment to the so called military industrial complex that produces all the weapons for use in US, by the US goverment and for selling abroad?

The current regime and it's party has made it's attitude clear, it wants to eventually ban all guns for civilian use. Selling abroad? Well that's where Barack the butcher decides that King Sauron McMurderface needs a few jets and a dozen depleted uranium bombs.

 

[Throatpunch]

What makes Barack Obama a butcher?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Supporting rebels in Libya and bombing it, supporting rebels in Syria and bombing it, being against rebels in Yemen and bombing it, keeping most soldiers in Iraq until the time Bush agreed to leave and trying to stay longer while keeping some soldiers there anyway, keeping soldiers in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, selling guns to cartels, selling guns to terrorist groups, selling all kinds of lethal military equipment to dictatorial regimes, Y'know, that kinda stuff.

 

[Throatpunch]

Supporting rebels in Libya and bombing it, supporting rebels in Syria and bombing it, being against rebels in Yemen and bombing it

Rebels rebelling against brutal dictators? And bombing brutal dictators (who are also butchers). I cannot why you'd have a problem with that.

keeping most soldiers in Iraq until the time Bush agreed to leave

It would have been dumb to pull out early; it would have made Iraq even more unstable. And now we have pulled out of Iraq it was almost taken over by ISIS and we had to go back in again. So it wasn't a good idea to pull out at all. A US presence was required for a while more until the Iraqi's could create a stable government, we didn't give them enough time.

keeping soldiers in Afghanistan,

He did the logical thing by delaying troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Security was deteriorating there and the Afghans needed support so they weren't overwhelmed. We cant leave Afghanistan because it would have made it incredibly vulnerable to terrorist group takeovers like what happened in Iraq.

bombing Pakistan

To eliminate the Taliban threat there, a noble goal. 64 high level insurgents killed, and thousands of low level ones. I'd say thats a smashing success.

selling guns to cartels, selling guns to terrorist groups, selling all kinds of lethal military equipment to dictatorial regimes

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Rebels rebelling against brutal dictators? And bombing brutal dictators (who are also butchers). I cannot why you'd have a problem with that.

Maybe I have a problem with it because both countries are now death traps with refugees pouring out of them.

It would have been dumb to pull out early; it would have made Iraq even more unstable. And now we have pulled out of Iraq it was almost taken over by ISIS and we had to go back in again. So it wasn't a good idea to pull out at all. A US presence was required for a while more until the Iraqi's could create a stable government, we didn't give them enough time.

Hell no, we just trained the wrong. They didn't know how to fight conventionally and were too used to insurgencies.

He did the logical thing by delaying troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Security was deteriorating there and the Afghans needed support so they weren't overwhelmed. We cant leave Afghanistan because it would have made it incredibly vulnerable to terrorist group takeovers like what happened in Iraq.

Terrorist group take overs. Like what's happening now even though he's still there?

To eliminate the Taliban threat there, a noble goal. 64 high level insurgents killed, and thousands of low level ones. I'd say thats a smashing success

And killed thousands of civilians. He killed thousands of civilians.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0RP2HO20150926

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...di-arabia-says-israel-doesn-t-object-1.320307