Gun Control

[MutantScalper]

All governments have a role in it.

Well there you go then.

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

No they're not.

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.

They want to ban guns? Well they better hustle it up then, not many months of Barry's reighn left.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

No they're not.

If you haven't noticed, the democrats are in control of the presidency.

They want to ban guns? Well they better hustle it up then, not many months of Barry's reighn left.

Uh, yes, they do. They've said it a lot. With all the times they've said they want to ban them all, this shouldn't be so foreign of an idea to folk.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Well there you go then

So no government can have a definition for anything it regulates?

 

[Crni Vuk]

What makes Barack Obama a butcher?

 

[MutantScalper]

If you haven't noticed, the democrats are in control of the presidency.

Uh, yes, they do. They've said it a lot. With all the times they've said they want to ban them all, this shouldn't be so foreign of an idea to folk.

I meant, the democrats aren't anti-gun.

They haven't said it.

So no government can have a definition for anything it regulates?

They are responsible for the end result.

 

[Throatpunch]

If you haven't noticed, the democrats are in control of the presidency.

Which means jack shit. You can't do anything without the House and/or the Senate.

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

No, of course they knew how to fight conventionally. They had grown reliant on US support during operations, and when left alone they struggled. Another reason not to pull out.

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

There is nothing wrong with giving weapons to the Saudi's, they're allies and opposed to ISIS.

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

Al Qaeda was a major threat to the USA and needed to be destroyed. The costs were to high for the USA to leave such a hotbed of terrorists active.
And for a guy who doesn't want to let in Syrian refugee's IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong, its weird that you suddenly care about civilian lives in the Middle East.

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

That is a very vague sentence. Whats happening where and who is there?

Anyway, this is way OT so we should move it to another thread if you want it to continue.

 

[SuAside]

We've had many gun rights threads before, and they always turned to shitposting.
As a result, I'd like to remind you to keep things civil, or this will end up in the Vats.
Yelling the loudest and posting the same stuff over & over again does not constitute you proving your point.

You have been warned.

I wish gun-proponents would just admit that "guns are awesome" is the number-one reason to own them.

My reasons for being into guns (off the top of my head, I probably forgot some):

• It's fun to shoot.
• It's relaxing. Not only the shooting itself, but cleaning the guns as well.
  
• Sport:
  • There's a near endless number of different disciplines.
  • It's a competitive sport which you can never truly master. Endless self-improvement is possible.
  • Even when shooting outside of competition, you can always improve precision, speed, etc.
  • I really enjoy sharing the experience and teaching other people to shoot.
• History:
  • You can hold and own a piece of history.
  • You can better relate to what the wars you learn about would have been like.
• Science:
  • The engineering involved in creating these weapons is rather amazing.
  • It's applied physics (which are often less obvious than you'd think btw).
  • Chemistry is obviously a big part of it.
• It's hard not to appreciate the workmanship that went into them.
• Some weapons are simply truly beautiful.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

I meant, the democrats aren't anti-gun.

They haven't said it.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...e-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

No, of course they knew how to fight conventionally. They had grown reliant on US support during operations, and when left alone they struggled. Another reason not to pull out.

They didn't know how to fight conventionally, they admitted it.

There is nothing wrong with giving weapons to the Saudi's, they're allies and opposed to ISIS.

The Saudis murder folk for being gay, have secret police and are a dictatorship.

Al Qaeda was a major threat to the USA and needed to be destroyed

"Major threat" no it wasn't. It wasn't in the slightest. It's a dying terrorist group with the goal of getting the US out of the Middle East.

And for a guy who doesn't want to let in Syrian refugee's IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong, its weird that you suddenly care about civilian lives in the Middle East.

I am pro-refugee, all I said on the other thread is that Islam is crap.

That is a very vague sentence. Whats happening where and who is there?

You do realize that the Taliban has come back and ISIS has invaded right?

 

[TheGM]

"Major threat" no it wasn't. It wasn't in the slightest. It's a dying terrorist group with the goal of getting the US out of the Middle East.

At Al Qaeda's height there were big threat at the time. They did launch bombings and assassinations but they often took shelter is real shit holes like Sudan or Afghanistan by cozying up to the rulers until either the leaders tried to sell them out(Sudan) or people got tired of their shit(Afghanistan). But things have shifted and the scale has moved so in the long run Al Qeada looks kinda shitty.

Apparently Al Qaeda is mad jealous of ISIS since ISIS is pretty much what Al Qaeda always wanted to be and has pretty much scooped up all their potential recruits and then some.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

Al-Qaeda was a pretty rational group, they had a list of goals, and besides Israel they could have probably been accepted and the Middle East would be a better place. No US military bases in the Middle East, and no support of dictators there. Since Al-Qaeda was rather weak, they didn't have much of a chance to take over any of those, and a lack of US support would force those dictatorships to change as they don't have a country like the US to rely on. You could argue China is on their level but they don't really intervene all that much in the Middle East and don't have the power to project as much force.

 

[Throatpunch]

They didn't know how to fight conventionally, they admitted it.

Do you have a source for that?
Anyway, even if they weren't trained properly the biggest contributing factor to their defeats by far was having what was effectively their US Military life support pulled out.

The Saudis murder folk for being gay, have secret police and are a dictatorship.

Not our problems, they are opposed to ISIS which is what matters to us.

"Major threat" no it wasn't. It wasn't in the slightest. It's a dying terrorist group with the goal of getting the US out of the Middle East.

Just because ISIS takes all the limelight doesn't mean its not still dangerous. And its absolutely not dying. Of course its still a threat!

Please read all these links:

• http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/once-and-future-threat-al-qaeda-hardly-dead
  
• http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/13/middleeast/afghanistan-al-qaeda/
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/john-brennan-cia-director-says-al-qaeda-still-majo/
• http://time.com/83145/al-qaeda-serious-threat-state-department/
• http://www.dawn.com/news/1255640/al-qaeda-after-bin-laden-still-a-dangerous-threat?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dawn-news+(Dawn+News)
• https://intelnews.org/2015/05/19/01-1698/
  
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/alqaeda-obl-death-anniversary-1.3558977
  
• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...eda-remains-top-threat-to-us-say-experts.html
  
• http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...of-a-threat-than-Islamic-State/2011442851165/

Since they are being blocked out of the sunshine by ISIS, the risk is high because they want to prove that ISIS hasn't replaced them, and they are still a powerful organisation. This makes the threat of an Al Qaeda orchestrated terror attack higher than it has been for years.
It was a major terrorist organisation with numerous camps and safe havens, and thousands of insurgents. The drone strikes in Pakistan dealt a blow to its operations in Pakistan, but its still extremely dangerous in other regions, still dangerous Pakistan and a major threat to the USA.

It might even be more dangerous than ISIS:

• http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...a-greater-terror-threat-to-the-u-s-than-isis/

I am pro-refugee, all I said on the other thread is that Islam is crap.

Then why did you say it?

You do realize that the Taliban has come back and ISIS has invaded right?

Which shows even more that we shouldn't have pulled out.

 

[Dr Fallout]

We've had many gun rights threads before, and they always turned to shitposting.
As a result, I'd like to remind you to keep things civil, or this will end up in the Vats.
Yelling the loudest and posting the same stuff over & over again does not constitute you proving your point.

You have been warned.

My reasons for being into guns (off the top of my head, I probably forgot some):

• It's fun to shoot.
• It's relaxing. Not only the shooting itself, but cleaning the guns as well.
  
• Sport:
  • There's a near endless number of different disciplines.
  • It's a competitive sport which you can never truly master. Endless self-improvement is possible.
  • Even when shooting outside of competition, you can always improve precision, speed, etc.
  • I really enjoy sharing the experience and teaching other people to shoot.
• History:
  • You can hold and own a piece of history.
  • You can better relate to what the wars you learn about would have been like.
• Science:
  • The engineering involved in creating these weapons is rather amazing.
  • It's applied physics (which are often less obvious than you'd think btw).
  • Chemistry is obviously a big part of it.
• It's hard not to appreciate the workmanship that went into them.
• Some weapons are simply truly beautiful.

You know... maybe you should get into... tabletop wargaming.
Because it's all these things (apart from the science) and more... yes it has a history. H.G Wells was a keen fan of wargaming, he even wrote a book on the subject. And this guy talked to Lenin and many famous Russian scientists, authors and actors during the Russian Civil War. Not to forget his famous works of fiction and non-fiction.

 

[MutantScalper]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...e-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/

Wasn't aware of those. Although, so what? Freedom of speech, etc. If you had two parties in a fictional country with a huge gun violence problem. One side would be in favour of guns and thus enabling all the shootings, past, present and future. The other side would be against guns and would like for them to be banned. I'd side with the latter side.

My reasons for being into guns (off the top of my head, I probably forgot some):

Do you have a self defence reason for having guns?

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

If you had two parties in a fictional country with a huge gun violence problem.

America has a violence problem, not a gun violence problem.

There's no such thing as a gun violence problem. Either the violence is the problem and the method of intiating it is irrelevant, or you don't see violence as a problem.

One side would be in favour of guns and thus enabling all the shootings, past, present and future

A successful ban on firearms is impossible and a black market will form to take the void, therefore they aren't enabling the shootings. The shootings will still occur and no problems will be solved.

The other side would be against guns and would like for them to be banned

And they will fail in doing so and waste manpower and time trying to tackle the tools instead of the actual causes of violence.

 

[MutantScalper]

America has a violence problem, not a gun violence problem.

There's no such thing as a gun violence problem. Either the violence is the problem and the method of intiating it is irrelevant, or you don't see violence as a problem.

A successful ban on firearms is impossible and a black market will form to take the void, therefore they aren't enabling the shootings. The shootings will still occur and no problems will be solved.

And they will fail in doing so and waste manpower and time trying to tackle the tools instead of the actual causes of violence.

Let them be violent with a wet sponge.

There already is a black market of guns in US. A yuuuuuuuuge one.

How is GOP trying to "tackle the actual causes of violence"? Tell me, I'm actually interested.

 

[Dr Fallout]

America has a violence problem, not a gun violence problem.

There's no such thing as a gun violence problem. Either the violence is the problem and the method of intiating it is irrelevant, or you don't see violence as a problem.

I found an interesting article, that while it's statistics are outdated, says otherwise.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

How is GOP trying to "tackle the actual causes of violence"? Tell me, I'm actually interested.

Screw the GOP.

Legalize drugs (all drugs) and start a cultural movement within the African American community, dedicated to getting rid of the violent and vice filled cultural elements pushed onto it by companies like MTV.

As for school shootings, we should remodel the schooling system either on the state level or federal level. Make it less stressful, and more voluntary, to avoid bullying and extra stress on young folk.

 

[Antiwarprofallout]

"One area over which there is very little controversy involves the relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates. When firearms are available, people commit suicide more regularly and more successfully than people without access to firearms."

https://mises.org/blog/guns-dont-cause-suicide

As for mishaps involved by guns: https://mises.org/library/gun-control-fashionable-prohibition-modern-lawmakers

As for the usual comparison between the US and countries with few if any problems: https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

As for the homicide rate increase: https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada

As for the psychological effects, well, it mentions culture being a major factor as we associate guns being used violently because we see it being used violently. There's no work around here as guns inherently have to be used in media because of Chekov. So fine, you got me there.

People don't kill people, people's brains kill people.

 

[TheGM]

Let them be violent with a wet sponge.

There already is a black market of guns in US. A yuuuuuuuuge one.

How is GOP trying to "tackle the actual causes of violence"? Tell me, I'm actually interested.

Then why ban guns?