Gun Control

Arnust said:
"I'm not saying that they're retarded, but... They are" - That Damn Dog, 2018.

I *could* make up the diametric opposite version of that post, but I lack the will to spout such nonsense and then pretend like I'm Mr. Rationale and whine about how there's no debate, "for some reason".
Click to expand...

what a wonderful and insightful post, I needed something to show people as an example of how gungrabbers are intellectually dishonest and will constantly try and put words in your mouth, thank you very much it is greatly appreciated

do you always provide such scintillating arguments, just wondering
 
That Damn Dog said:
what a wonderful and insightful post, I needed something to show people as an example of how gungrabbers are intellectually dishonest and will constantly try and put words in your mouth, thank you very much it is greatly appreciated
Click to expand...
No problem man, I was happy to help. You already did most of the work by writing the version of that for the other side of the argument yourself, anyway.
 
Arnust said:
No problem man, I was happy to help. You already did most of the work by writing the version of that for the other side of the argument yourself, anyway.
Click to expand...

something I never did and never plan to do, another masterstroke of intellectual dishonesty! Bra-vo!

You have managed to provide two non-responses to what I have said now, are you going to make it a hat trick?

No, seriously, I wish everyone I ever had to talk to about gun control was as willing to lay bare their propensity for being a screeching asstard who thinks tu quoque always wins arguments. We'd have galvanized support for the 2nd in totality by now if the best the other side ever had to offer was someone of your exceptional acumen
 
Can we all please be nice and not perfect examples on people being too stupid to be trusted with guns?
 
Hassknecht said:
Can we all please be nice and not perfect examples on people being too stupid to be trusted with guns?
Click to expand...

I would nominally agree with you if "be nice, be reasonable" wasn't something I heard constantly from the other side as they slashed away at the 2nd amendment and its supporters. I don't particularly enjoy the meanness inherent in current political discourse either but a lot of us are tired of smiling at people who think we're utter monsters just because we aren't mortified of black matte "baby killers" just like they are

Also, 2ndA is pretty important stuff. It's a doomsday provision against shit becoming untenable and it was created with the assumption of firepower parity (or close to) with the government, not a shadow of it like it currently is. The fact that people want to abolish that BOGGLES MY MIND, particularly given how bristly they tend to be towards the current administration.
 
Last edited:
Well, at least you're providing the "and then pretend like I'm Mr. Rationale and whine about how there's no debate, "for some reason" part. I for a moment thought that was assuming too much, but apparently not.

But anyway, let's be done with that one. For an attempt at talking about something else more in specific; how would you think of a change involving say, harder ammunition amount limits? In the sense that there's an arbitrary limit to purchaseable ammo in every determined lapse of time asigned to your license. I don't see a way this would hurt the average gun owner, and reduce the lethality of offensors to an extent. Of course there'd be allowed exceptions and maybe higher and lower caps according to the nature of your license. After all, "banning guns" doesn't need to take place if controlling better what differentates them from the average blunt object.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arnust said:
Well, at least you're providing the "and then pretend like I'm Mr. Rationale and whine about how there's no debate, "for some reason" part. I for a moment thought that was assuming too much, but apparently not.
Click to expand...

There is no debate to had, you're here to take passive aggressive shots and nothing more frankly, that's become clear. Bring your A game next time.

EDIT:
Arnust said:
But anyway, let's be done with that one. For an attempt at talking about something else more in specific; how would you think of a change involving say, harder ammunition amount limits? In the sense that there's an arbitrary limit to purchaseable ammo in every determined lapse of time asigned to your license. I don't see a way this would hurt the average gun owner, and reduce the lethality of offensors to an extent. Of course there'd be allowed exceptions and maybe higher and lower caps according to the nature of your license. After all, "banning guns" doesn't need to take place if controlling better what differentates them from the average blunt object.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you some things: do you go to the range often? Do you own a gun, have you purchased ammo, how many rounds do you think you put downrange per visit? How do you plan to account for reloaders in your scheme to try and bottleneck mass shooters out of existence? Furthermore, do you know how much ammo a murderer generally tends to go through during a rampage? Is there even a general figure, given how small the "mass shooter" sample pool tends to be all things considered?

And "license": No. This is an enumerated right, not a privilege to be granted at the whim of a government licensing agency. Yes, I am very firm on this.
 
Last edited:
Hassknecht said:
I can see why people would want to ban semi-automatic intermediate rifles. Unlike shotguns or hunting rifles, they were specifically developed to be tools of warfare. They're optimized for killing people, not for hunting or for self-defense. But the statistics show clearly that the majority of gun-related violence is done with handguns, so what's the point of banning "assault rifles" for everyone when the impact will be hardly noticable?
I maintain that I'd like to see gun ownership be as liberal as possible, but that also requires a population that is responsible and smart. This makes this debate hard for me, because while I believe that everyone should have equal rights to gun ownership, I don't believe that more than half of the population is really fit to own a gun. Personal development and intelligence is lacking in too many people. Being so desensitized to violence that it becomes a real fucking option to pull a gun on your fellow man over a parking spot? The majority of people should not have guns, but if one were to implement a ton of tests and safeguards and background checks, gun ownership isn't exactly liberal anymore, becoming much closer to the european model.
Everyone is pointing their fingers at Switzerland as an example of a country with lots of guns and little problems, but it's the swiss culture and the swiss people that allow this to happen. Not everyone is Swiss, and what works well in Switzerland does obviously not work in the US. If the USA could become more like Switzerland, great, but that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Switzerland has had some 'high profile' mass shootings committed with those service weapons. I think the thing in Switzerland is that they have their service weapon at home but no bullets. So they are exercising bullet control.



Btw, there was a mass shooting in Finland by a young boy with a hunting rifle. He was a big fan of Simo Häyhä. The boy shot a bunch of people including badly wounding a female cop.
 
MutantScalper said:
Switzerland has had some 'high profile' mass shootings committed with those service weapons. I think the thing in Switzerland is that they have their service weapon at home but no bullets. So they are exercising bullet control.



Btw, there was a mass shooting in Finland by a young boy with a hunting rifle. He was a big fan of Simo Häyhä. The boy shot a bunch of people including badly wounding a female cop.
Click to expand...


I don't dislike Chris Rock but can we avoid treating "celebrity sez things" as some kind of bon mot in discussions

I don't know Switzerland's or Finland's laws and while I think any mass shooting is a tragedy I'm not interested in venturing any other opinions on those matters. The USA is a different animal for a NUMBER of reasons. I will say that "mass shootings" form a small percentage of gun crime (however splashy they may be) and the term "mass shooting" is inconsistently applied, usually for political reasons, and can potentially mean anything from a nutcase shooting up his office building to a gang war (but it usually only gets consistently applied to the first for some reason).
 
Why does every argument over guns descend into ad hominem attacks? We're all human guys. The U.S. has problems, yes. The U.K., Finland, have problems. But we'll never solve them if we're just insulting each other.
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
Why does every argument over guns descend into ad hominem attacks? We're all human guys. The U.S. has problems, yes. The U.K., Finland, have problems. But we'll never solve them if we're just insulting each other.
Click to expand...

Because internet debate is ad hominem's and strawmen. Nobody convinces anybody of their viewpoint, it is always a huge circlejerk with everyone pretending to be more top hat than the next guy. Any conversation that is attempting to flow in a normal manner, as in, making small talk about some event in the world, becomes a huge 300 page debate where people ask you to SOURCE PLEASE, or hurl insults about something you said 2 years ago while buttfucking on a webcam.

Every one of these hot topic debates is a hot topic because both sides have valid points. Guns are good to defend against bad people. Guns can also be used by bad people to hurt good people. The USA has a lot of gun violence. It also makes a lot of guns, sells a lot of guns, and generally loves itself some guns due to the nature of us winning our liberty from a tyrannical government. The debate gets to be so long in the tooth that every side just begins to parrot the same thing over and over.

It gets to the point where you figure enough reasonably intelligent people could just write a massive document, well sourced, with all the information and counterpoints from both sides, to properly convey the debate on any particular topic with reasonably degree of truth. Why do you not get this?

1) If people do this they write a book and sell it. Money.

2) Disinformation. The water is so muddy you can't handle the truth because you can't find it. At some level it gets to "The NRA is corrupt" and either side does not have enough truthful information to make a proper judgement call so it boils down to opinions.

Money and lies makes the world turn. The Libs want your guns so they can sell them to other countries. The Reds want us to have guns so they can sell them PERIOD.
 
TorontRayne said:
Because internet debate is ad hominem's and strawmen. Nobody convinces anybody of their viewpoint, it is always a huge circlejerk with everyone pretending to be more top hat than the next guy. Any conversation that is attempting to flow in a normal manner, as in, making small talk about some event in the world, becomes a huge 300 page debate where people ask you to SOURCE PLEASE, or hurl insults about something you said 2 years ago while buttfucking on a webcam.
Click to expand...
yeah, fair enough.

As for the money part, spot on. Same reason, imo, medical insurance companies make it such a hassle to get help (as it was for me); insurance companies lose money when they have to pay for your hospitalization and meds, so obviously they don't recommend outpatient. I had to find out that hospital-follow-up outpatient was a fucking thing by actually being committed and having my case worker in the loony bin recommend me to one, which didn't even fucking work until I transferred to another, larger one in Hartford, now knowing that such a thing existed.

I have many problems with the American gov't, one of which being how it's basically a big business.

P.S. I highly recommend the Adult Outpatient/Young Adult Outpatient program at the Institute of Living in Hartford CT if you need it. They're based out've Hartford Hospital. The staff were great people and the group therapy gave me a lot of time to hear other people's opinions and take on the shit I was going through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In regards to the government, money and business: one of the distinct disadvantages of government in the first place is that it's composed of people - corruptible people, who probably like having money and power. There are a number of things that can be done to reduce the amount of utter horseshit going on in DC in regards to things like corporate lobbyists and the sway they hold, and I can absolutely guarantee not a single one of them will ever be tried within any of our lifetimes because, simply put, there's practically no real interest in such reforms in DC, and keeping the attention of the hoi polloi for a conversation about the issues posed by things like the revolving door of government and corporate lobbying usually ends up being about as productive as attempting to herd cats that are in the process of being distracted by a million different laser pointers with names like "gay marriage" and "gun control" and so on and so forth. People tend to get the governments they deserve - we just happen to be trapped in here with them.

But we're starting to drift perhaps slightly off thread topic here, so I'll leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top