Mississipi shooter kills 8

[StarTrekVoyager]

But remember Gun ownership is a prima facie right

Yeah, unfortunately, the US are scotching to a text written centuries ago when the society had nothing to do with today's one. That's sad. Really, how are assault semi-automatic guns still allowed?

 

[RevPokemon]

Yeah, unfortunately, the US are scotching to a text written centuries ago when the society had nothing to do with today's one. That's sad. Really, how are assault semi-automatic guns still allowed?

Well, first of all, it is within the Constitution, a right for citizens to bear arms. However, that is a weak argument since it depends on the law and as such stronger arguments exist philosophically. The prima facie right of gun ownership is not overridden by the social harms of private gun ownership much in the same sense of how the dangers of immigration does not override the prima facie right of free immigration. Thus any attempt to restrict immigration or gun ownership is a rights violation imposed by a government and is a serious deal that should be taken care of.

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Well, first of all, it is within the Constitution, a right for citizens to bear arms. However, that is a weak argument since it depends on the law and as such stronger arguments exist philosophically. The prima facie right of gun ownership is not overridden by the social harms of private gun ownership much in the same sense of how the dangers of immigration does not override the prima facie right of free immigration. Thus any attempt to restrict immigration or gun ownership is a rights violation imposed by a government and is a serious deal that should be taken care of.

I understand the whole 2d amendment thing, and I understand that it's important for Americans. But just see the NRA. Only because of the gun makers lobbyists, they fight for absurd things. Who would a random civilian ever need a war automatic gun for anything but mass shootings? Who'd really need more than a random revolver or something? That's the real absurdity.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

America is indeed one of the best countries in the world and in my opinion the best Western country by far. Now, between Brazil and Sweden, I'd say that Brazil is a better developed country than Sweden.

You guys have problems with favelas and gangs but still avoid having the 'innocent' 'refugees' over there (obviously they wouldn't want to live in Brazil... no welfare for them).

See @Memoir this type of thing is what I'm talking about

 

[RevPokemon]

But just see the NRA. Only because of the gun makers lobbyists, they fight for absurd things. Who would a random civilian ever need a war automatic gun for anything but mass shootings? Who'd really need more than a random revolver or something? That's the real absurdity.

Well from that standpoint, ANY restriction is a rights violation as I stated. Now would a random Joe need an AK47 or something like that? The answer is that realistically speaking it does not matter. In some sense, it would be like arguing it would be a good idea to restrict presses from releasing hateful books such as The Turner Diaries on the basis "no average Joe would read such hate filled nonsense". While that may be true, it does not mean that it is not a violation of one's rights...

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Well from that standpoint, ANY restriction is a rights violation as I stated. Now would a random Joe need an AK47 or something like that? The answer is that realistically speaking it does not matter. In some sense, it would be like arguing it would be a good idea to restrict presses from releasing hateful books such as The Turner Diaries on the basis "no average Joe would read such hate filled nonsense". While that may be true, it does not mean that it is not a violation of one's rights...

And the Patriot Act? More seriously, blindly fighting for such 'rights' without wondering if they are really valid is nonsense. If raping is allowed somewhere, would laws against that be "right restrictions?" If Americans want mass shootings to stop, modifying the law is the only way to go.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

If I had a choice between Venezuela or Australia, I'll take the latter of the two, Venezuela is a shithole. No country is perfect, it's impossible, but some aren't as bad as others.

Well, now. Between Frankistan and Swedinstan is a tough choice. There's always the rural areas so I suppose that's something.

 

[HamBone41801]

In America they seem to encourage people to have guns.
Have a criminal record? Great! Repeat business, have 10% off your second murder weapon!

yea, that's uh... that's pretty close... there aren't that many gun related restrictions for violent offenders (now don't get me wrong, there certainly are some, but unless your a convicted murderer, there's not much.)

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

Well, now. Between Frankistan and Swedinstan is a tough choice. There's always the rural areas so I suppose that's something.

What? Really? Frankistan? Swedinstan?

...

Really, I live in France, but I'd definitely choose Sweden where the system is almost perfect, people are educated and wages are very high. And there aren't commie syndicates.

 

[HamBone41801]

In America they seem to encourage people to have guns.
Have a criminal record? Great! Repeat business, have 10% off your second murder weapon!

also as a side note, I'm 100% pro guns. I like guns. but there needs to be more restrictions for violent offenders AND IQ tests. Mental stability examinations wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

What? Really? Frankistan? Swedinstan?

...

Really, I live in France, but I'd definitely choose Sweden where the system is almost perfect, people are educated and wages are very high. And there aren't commie syndicates.

Women being raped equates to a "where the system is almost perfect"? It's nowhere near perfect.

 

[RevPokemon]

And the Patriot Act?

That is a good example also of a major rights violator, but in some sense, the whole thing is pretty much-considered bullshit.

More seriously, blindly fighting for such 'rights' without wondering if they are really valid is nonsense.

As I stated, the right to gun ownership is valid just as is immigration.

If raping is allowed somewhere, would laws against that be "right restrictions?"

You are seeming to make a mistake here since I am by no means arguing legally but rather philosophically. But to answer your point, legally that would be correct as long as the area permitting rape is still intact.

If Americans want mass shootings to stop, modifying the law is the only way to go.

Not really. Sure no one wants these shootings but one must ask if it is worth placing such restrictions on rights since it can do great harm. Like why allow certain books to be published when they can do harm? Why not spy without court orders since you need to?

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

As I stated, the right to gun ownership is valid just as is immigration.

I agree. I actually do not support illegal immigration, I think people should just go the regular way, with Visas, passports and all the shit. Not to be mixed with the right of asylum, which allows people to live in a placed that is not bombed, trusted by terrorists, or attacked with sarin gas

 

[HamBone41801]

also as a side note, I'm 100% pro guns. I like guns. but there needs to be more restrictions for violent offenders AND IQ tests. Mental stability examinations wouldn't hurt either.

and for the last part about IQ and mental stability, I'd like to clarify that these should be required before you receive a firearm.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Not really. Sure no one wants these shootings but one must ask if it is worth placing such restrictions on rights since it can do great harm. Like why allow certain books to be published when they can do harm? Why not spy without court orders since you need to?

Honestly I feel like if a gun licence education test was required the same way driver's ed is, it would solve so many problems without really restricting rights

 

[StarTrekVoyager]

and for the last part about IQ and mental stability, I'd like to clarify that these should be required before you receive a firearm.

^This. This. I'm perfectly for this. Pro-guns don't need to be like some at the NRA "machineguns for everyone, even mentally ill and apes, why not?"

 

[HamBone41801]

Honestly I feel like if a gun licence education test was required the same way driver's ed is, it would solve so many problems without really restricting rights

I think a mental heath check apon renewal of a license would be good. similar to elderly having to prove they are still capable of driving.

 

[RevPokemon]

Honestly I feel like if a gun licence education test was required the same way driver's ed is, it would solve so many problems without really restricting rights

and for the last part about IQ and mental stability, I'd like to clarify that these should be required before you receive a firearm.

^This. This. I'm perfectly for this. Pro-guns don't need to be like some at the NRA "machineguns for everyone, even mentally ill and apes, why not?"

By nature, it would restrict the rights of the citizens much in the same way that immigration restrictions do since it basically becomes prove the state as to why you should be granted X right. This can be especially risky since the criteria for immigration, gun ownership, and so on could be based in such a way that few could "gain" such rights.

 

[HamBone41801]

By nature, it would restrict the rights of the citizens much in the same way that immigration restrictions do since it basically becomes prove the state as to why you should be granted X right. This can be especially risky since the criteria for immigration, gun ownership, and so on could be based in such a way that few could "gain" such rights.

I agree that the system could be abused to that point, but don't drivers licences work the same way? you have to prove your worthy of the right to get in a machine that could kill people.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

By nature, it would restrict the rights of the citizens much in the same way that immigration restrictions do since it basically becomes prove the state as to why you should be granted X right. This can be especially risky since the criteria for immigration, gun ownership, and so on could be based in such a way that few could "gain" such rights.

There's a difference between restricting rights and regulating a potentially dangerous market so that future damage could be prevented